Customer Reviews

America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book is really a series of eight essays on various aspects of the culture and character of the United States Military and how those qualities have led to the strength of our fighting forces in battle and in peace. The author, Professor Larry Schweikart, teaches at the University of Dayton and has written on military matters in the past and is the co-author of "A Patriot's History of the United States".

The first chapter describes how Americans have treated prisoners throughout our history versus the standard treatment of prisoners by other nations and then uses that context to give a clearer picture of Abu Graib and Gitmo. While the outrages our soldiers have suffered in no way excuses any abuses we commit, he also notes our punishment of those committing those abuses.

The second chapter goes into how our armed forces have learned from failure and loss throughout our history. The real danger of loss is the paralyzing effects it has on the ability to make decisions and continue to take the fight to the enemy. Our ability to recoup, gather new approaches, and become stronger is duly noted.

In the third chapter Schweikart takes us through the role of the Citizen soldier throughout our history. Especially comparing the militia versus the professional soldier. It has given our military a special character. Particularly interesting is his debunking of the constitution of our current volunteer army and the vested interest some have in perpetuating the false picture of our military as kids who can't succeed in life at anything else. Nothing could be further from the truth!

I really enjoyed the discussion in the fourth chapter about how our empowering our front line soldiers and their immediate leaders to take the initiative, to adapt, and to succeed even when orders have to be changed to gain the larger objective. The author compares that to the strongly centralized decision making of enemies we have defeated throughout our history.

In chapters five and six he discusses the role of technology and industrial might in our success at war and the way our ability to integrate our armed forces into a single fighting force has increased our ability to defeat our enemies.

In the last chapter he discusses how protest has strengthened our military by causing us to rethink the mission, the means, and the way in which we use our armed forces. He does deal with the concept and problem for a large democracy in fighting a small conflict because it is tough to accept the kind of brutality and loss it takes to win wars for what are perceived as small stakes (but are they really small?).

The conclusion draws everything together in a single essay.

The book is written in a rather informal style and jumps from topic to topic much like the old and popular TV show "Connections" by James Burke. Sometimes the re-use of stories and examples can seem a bit repetitive and at other times the author brings something up or makes a simple assertion that might have benefited from some more focused and structured discussion. Also, there are a few small slips, such as on page 167 where he has the 1965 battle at Ia Drang and the 1993 battle in Mogadishu, Somalia as separated by "Just under twenty years" where he meant thirty, obviously. He has a few nice maps, but doesn't really integrate them into the discussion and that seems a shame, as well.

This book can help readers, young people especially, understand what is strong and good about our military history and can help cure the wholly negative picture they receive from the mainstream media sources, the large majority of our entertainment industry, and from too many of our schools (at all levels).

Just don't expect a series of histories of various military battles or a scholarly debate about American military history and you should be fine. Really, it is a book of appreciation and apologia for our country's use of military force over our more than two centuries of existence.

America's Victories is a popular, not scholarly or analytical, explanation of several more or less unique factors about how America has fought throughout its history. The general thesis of the author is that the combination of these factors, which reflect a uniquley American (beyond merely Western) culture -born from the Revolution- makes the American military singularly effective at wining wars.

Each chapter goes into a factor, which include: Our relatively humane treatment of prisoners, our ability to learn from losses because we don't have too much pride to investigate our mistakes, our citizen solider ethos, our encouragement of individual initiative in our armed forces, our free-market derived mass production power, the ability of our branches to operate in a joint manner as a single unified force, and how anti-war protests have focused our military to avoid losses and thus become a more effective killing force.

The book reads very easy and is enjoyable, but each chapter comes off like a loose assortment of facts. There is a lot of good information and interesting revelations in the book which certainly makes it worthwhile, but the presentation of the argument is not really comprehensive or focused enough to sway those who have an anti-military bent, or to serve to inform professional warfighters how to plan and lead combat. In all fairness however the above two goals would have been excruciatingly difficult to achieve, especially in a book the length of this one, and the author probably didn't have either of them in mind when writing this text. Just an FYI for anyone possibly expecting the book to deliver this, as the subtitle could suggest. There is also no grand strategy presented about how to win the war on terror, it's assumed as a corollary that the American way of fighting is essentially invincible and terrorism will thus fare no better than facism or communism.

The bottom line is that this book has a good deal of interesting information, loosely arranged around a pretty decent thesis, but is not solid enough to be anything more than general interest. Recommended, but should be tempered with the expectation that it is a relatively simple conceptual overview of what could be an extremely in-depth and important topic: how specifically America can continue to fight and win wars against terrorism and global instability in the current age.

"America's Victories" is essentially a discussion of American exceptionalism in the context of her military and conduct of wars. America is often viewed by adversaries as an essentially unwarlike people--the Japanese, for example, thought that one hard blow would so discourage Americans that the country would turn its back upon the Western Pacific. Nor has the military traditionally been the path to wealth or status within American society as it has been in the societies of many of America's opponents. So how is it that Americans, nevertheless, generally win wars?

This book addresses these questions. As one might expect from the co-author of "A Patriot's History of the United States," the basic thesis of this work is that the American military is a reflection of what works in other American institutions. The author notes that the military draws from America's incredibly diverse citizenry (and sometimes non-citizenry) and has traditionally been a place where soldiers could overcome disadvantages of birth or class. The traditional American high value of individual life and aversion to casualties has remorselessly forced the military to devise ways of fighting wars that minimize both American and enemy casualties. (An interesting corrollary to this: no other country has repeatedly sought to liberate its POWs during conflicts as America has in WW2 and Vietnam, for instance.) American free enterprise creates better and more innovative weapons and tactics than those of centrally-planned totalitarian states, just as her consumer economy produces innovative civilian products to which Soviet-style command economies cannot compare. American soldiers, while disciplined, are thinking citizen-soldiers, not cannon fodder in the disciplined Prussian mold. (Anyone who has ever served in the military has to be impressed with the essentially egalitarian culture within the military, where the undoubted superior position of officers is nontheless balanced by the fact that enlisted men enjoy rights unmatched in probably any other country's military.)

Perhaps among the most important observations that Schweikert makes is that America's military derives from an intensely competitive, capitalistic society. Just as market capitalism forces those in the marketplace to learn from mistakes or perish, the American military has developed a culture that examines and learns from mistakes (oh, yes, there are mistakes!) and becomes stronger. In a field where mistakes usually involve the loss of human life, this ability to learn from mistakes is an essential component of America's military success.

This is all true. But Schweikart also addresses the problems of America as a military power. Few world powers have ever had such a powerful, anti-military faction comparable to the American Left. Anti-military Leftists have grown stronger in America in recent decades, as the author tellingly points out, and the Left wields great power in many American institutions including the press, entertainment, and American universities. For example, many, many of the Hollywood stars of the 1940s had distinguished war records, and served their country humbly and well as front-line soldiers, sailors, or airmen. Very few in the entertainment business today have served or would consider serving a tour in the military.

This is a piece that has the potential to challenge the thinking of those on the Left, and it is an excellent companion piece to "A Patriot's History of the United States." In our presently very divided body politic, it is unlikely that many of those on the Left will be convinced by this work of the essential humanity and competence of America's military. On the other hand, there are sufficient books out there that gratuitously condemn America's military that a work like this is needed.

Recommended.

Schweikart captures the essence of the unparalleled military success of the US Military with this book. Have their been mistakes? Yes. Have there been defeats? Yes. But the over-riding history of the US military is the most tremendous success, coupled with the most compassionate treatment of its enemies, and loyalty to its own, of any military force on earth.

In America's Victories, Schweikart uses seven points to punctuate a great deal of the reason why the us miltary has enjoyed such success. Those points of Gitmo, Gulags and Great Raids; Learning from Loss; Citizens as Soldiers; Pushing Autonomy down; If you build it, we will win; All for one; and, Protesters make soldiers better. In reality, in using these points and the explanation that goes with them (which explanation is rich in examples and detail of American military exploits), Schweikart captures the essence of how the overall American experience has made America's military what it is.

In this regard, I would highly recommend Schweikart's other recent, and best selling work, "A Patriot's HIstory of the United States".

As an author myself ("The Dragon's Fury Series" and "The Stand at Klamath Falls"), my hat is off to Mr. Schweikart and his clear grasp of American history and his ability to render in into the written word how that history has translated into a military force that has done more to secure freedom, and extend it, than any other military force in history.

America's Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror by Larry Schweikart presents an interesting premise, that America's unique attributes leads to its winning wars.

Schweikart sets out seven main premises: that America has a high regard for human life, both its own soldiers and the enemy's; that America learns from loss better than its foes; that its free citizens, willing to be soldiers, are a great strength; that America pushes decision-making down, which suites both its culture and the chaos of war; that American innovation and industry produce superior war material; that American armed forces fight well in joint operations; and, counterintuitively, that the anti-war left, Hollywood, and the press, has made the US military far more lethal and accurate as it seeks to minimize friendly losses and unneeded enemy losses to reduce criticism.

As Schweikart concludes, "America's victories come in large part because ending the war becomes the primary objective, not "dying gloriously." Precisely because our concern for preserving life--even of wounded comrades--exceeds our desire to end the lives of our enemies, Americans have mastered the techniques and training and the medicine and maneuvers needed to win with as few losses as possible."

Schweikart's America's Victories is a great book for someone starting a study of military history or considering a career in the U.S. armed forces. For the serious military historian, it is worth the read and may even challenge long-held notions of American warfighting.

Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is a candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010, a California State Assemblyman, he served as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Department of Defense from 1986 to 1988, retired from the Army National Guard as a lieutenant colonel, and is the co-author of "China Attacks."

Busting Revisionist History Myths

This book is an extremely easy read. It is well footnoted to original sources, and provides a history that is based on facts as opposed to a person's interpretation. You learn information concerning United States' military history that is at odds with current revisionist interpretations.

For example, when I got to the parts concerning the Mexican War, they were at odds with what some college history professors are teaching. With a little research and going to source documents you discover Larry Schweikart is correct and the revisionists are way off base. This is one of many examples, where Professor Schweikart gets it right and revisionists have simply gotten it wrong.

If you are of the political left persuasion, I wouldn't read this book. The book will challenge your believes, and with the well documented support material alter your perception of the US military and its history.

If you enjoy history and want a well researched high level look at why the US wins wars, this is the book for you. I highly recommend it.

Are you tired of Liberal professors telling you how bad America is, or are you tired of only hearing of our troops being shot on the news. Then this book is for you. It is a well written and researched book, as an examination of the notes will clearly show. However it lacks the boring read of a college text book, and on the contrary, it is actually fun to read. The maps are detailed and helpful, and the author does a great job of explaining just what the title says, "Why America Wins Wars." If you are interested in learning about American Military History, this is one of the best one volume books out there for you.

I purchased America's Victories: 'Why the U.S. Wins Wars and Will Win the War on Terror' by Larry Schweikart at the Hudson News outlet at the Continental terminal at Los Angeles International Airport just before my flight back to Houston from a brief vacation. I had been looking for Bill O'Reilley's 'Culture Warrior,' when I found this book. It was my perception that the positive nature (read pro-military and pro-Bush if you like) of the title and description that caused me to buy it.

Having now established myself as what many of you, including my mother, would call a militaristic right-winger who believes that Bush knows what he is doing, let me tell you why I think this book is one of the better discussions on why a) our military is the best in the world and b) why are country at its core is the same.

Reading this book and thinking it is nothing more than a neo-con manifesto is selling it short. True, it comes across a bit rah-rah cheerleading, but, if you have ever had the opportunity to watch and listen to the US military in garrison, this tone very much mimics them (or at least it mimics my son who is in his 13th year in the US Army). I do not know if the author set out to do that, but it came out that way.

The core concept in this book is that free-enterprise and personal freedoms are what makes our country succesful in wartime. This book does not set out to justify any war. Instead, it shows why ythe American military is good at what it does.

In eight treaties that are somewhat convoluted and of mixed validity, Mr. Schweikart points out what allows a group of break-away colonies to avoid a centralized economy with a large standing military and become the major defender of freedom in the mid 20th Century. He then pushed those concepts forward to explain why military success will continue to accrue to our armed forces. Included in this doctrine is the notion of limiting casualties by equipping our forces with the best equipment - admittedly, this is sometimes after the opening of hostiliites - to ultimately win the conflict.

This capitalist, libertarian approach does not address the "rightness" of a conflict. In fact, I will stipulate the author's views are skewed toward a "my country, right or wrong" approach. But, I do not think the book should be ignored becasue oft hat.

One of the more interesting concepts was the author's comparison between what I will call "militant Shintoism" and "militant Islam," thus showing that WWII kamakazi attacks and the attacks of 9-11 were carried out by people of more-or-less the same mind set.

Other analyses - as mentioned - are a bit weak. His comment that one of the greater impacts of the US bomber offensive in 1942/1943 was that it kept German aircraft away from the Eastern Front, thus assuring Russian victory is a bit lame in my opinion. The aircraft were fighter interceptors and would not have been of great value in the east where fighter-bombers were needed.

The book also has - in my opinion - too many mis-spellings and factual mis-statements. I found this annoying, rather than damaging to the premise of this book. In fact, the trend towards these two problems seemed to accelerate as the book went on. For example, the multi-wheeled armored car used by the Army is the Stryker, not the Striker. To me, this indicates the author is either uninformed or left the spell- and fact-checking to a novice.

In tune with "A Patriot's History", this book covers a lot of revisionist history, socialist views, and takes on the media portrayal of how America conducts wars. It shows, point for point, exactly how the United States military has become the most lethal, yet most careful and humanitarian force the planet has ever seen and how the US military will continue to dominate the battlefield.

I'd recommend this book to anyone with even a cursory interest in US History.

I would also like to comment on some of the other reviews that claims the author seems to jump around or that the book lacks cohesion: The book appears to have been written with the idea that the reader already has a pretty good understanding of US History. While the novice scholar might have trouble seeing how the author's examples fit together, people that have studied history, have paid attention in the last 20 years, or at least read "Patriot's History" shouldn't have very much trouble in linking the examples and seeing the main points/arguments.

See: A Patriot's History of the United States : From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror

As others have noted, this is an extremely readable account of the factors that contribute to American military success. This reads more like an extended op ed article rather than a dry scholarly tome. Nevertheless, it is footnoted, and if you're interested in a given subject, you can use his sources to follow them up in greater detail. It is definitely written from a conservative perspective, and the Left will surely disagree with much of what this book says (indeed, his specific purpose is to counter "Leftist myths").

I have several nits I might pick with his arguments, but I think the major weakness is the contention that the US learned a lot from defeat in Vietnam. It is true that the US Army improved dramatically after 1973, but that was in spite of Vietnam, not because of it. In my opinion, the Army did not engage in rigorous self-criticism of its failure in Vietnam - instead, after 1973, the Army did its best to forget Vietnam and focused instead on fighting the Soviets in Germany. As a result, the Army forgot all the lessons of counter-insurgency so painfully learned in Vietnam, and is now having to learn them all over again in Iraq. But Schweikart says nothing of this.