| ||||||||||||
Features chapters on:
Desert Battles is a study of the nature of desert warfare with special attention to the evolution of weaponry, the organization of forces, the impact of the desert environment on the ability of those forces to sustain battle, and the influences of the desert on battle tactics.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Very imaginative author,
By
This review is from: Desert Battles: From Napoleon to the Gulf War (Stackpole Military History Series) (Paperback)
After finishing the book, I wonder if the author wishes he could have written about something different, but there was only money in writing about this topic, so the author took the assignment and then shoe-horned his own opinion in at the end. Up until the last chapter, the narrative is coherent, entertaining, and informative. But that last step is a doozy.
Basically, it comes down to how history has changed warfare forever, to the point that war is no longer sustainable in the way the West is now doing it. The weapons are too destructive, expensive, and mean-spirited to be employed for much longer. It was different in simpler times when to kill another man, you had to meet them eye-to-eye, and generals had to more-or-less field an equal force as the enemy. Now, a single technician can annihilate an entire nation-state from anywhere in the world. This is a game-changing transformation. It means that the culture of annihilation practiced by our military and government is no longer appropriate. Restraint in the use of force must be exercised. Branding an entire group as "the enemy" and then blithely allowing that group's destruction to happen as a result of "collateral damage," or some other sanitized cliche because of how little the military is accountable for their own havoc will not succeed anymore. Not only will the public not tolerate seeing pictures of vast swathes of devastation, but basic human decency should dictate that our soldiers use the minimum amount of violence necessary to achieve victory. The author points out that even the goal of victory is a misleading and futile endeavor, because what is victory? Is it the death of anyone who disagrees with Western politics enough to pick up a gun, or just the acquisition of a peace treaty? Does a situation suddenly become "ok" when representatives sign a paper promising they won't commit these atrocities anymore (but you can't come back and check up on us)? Especially the last few pages of the last chapter, my hi-liter was getting a serious work-out. There's some intense fodder for some debate about the virtues of war, or if ever war is a viable alternative to conflict resolution. I disagree with the author on some points - mostly based on circumstantial evidence. But that's the problem - reality, like the enemy, gets to vote on the success of your plan, whether you like it or not.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
|
|
