Customer Reviews

Shadow Warriors: A History of the US Army Rangers (General Military)

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

As a Former Old Scroll 2nd Batt Ranger I found the book to be well written and I also happen to agree with the authors political slant. I actually read this several years ago and decided to pick it up again to see if my opinion changed. It has not...Rangers like any other specialized unit have allot of sacred cows and taboos. It was refreshing to see the author try to approach current Ranger Deployments and Combat Operations Honestly without the usual RA RA Ranger stuff. I also find it very interesting that Donald's Rumsfeld's DOD reviewed and approved the final draft of the book before it was published! I wonder if some of the other reviewers here took that into account....

I reccommend this book to anyone who has an interest in special operations forces in general and Rangers in particular. Most everything you would want to know is in here including Ranger history and origins, creation of the permanent Ranger battalions in the 1970's, and eyewitness accounts of the invasions of Grenada and Panama as well as Reforger exercises. This book also includes great pictures from those early days. Just be aware, the majority of this book focuses on the 2nd Ranger Battalion, but overall is an excellent read.

Reading the book several years after its publication the author is correct in holding Bush and Rumsfeld accountable for the mishandling of the current wars. Many generals and admirals have expressed the very same ideas put forth in this book and the author even quotes Marine General Riper who was one of the most vocal military officers at odds with Rumsfeld.

No matter what political affiliation, the stories about the rangers are excellent and well worth the read.

As someone who will read anything about Rangers I knew I was in trouble a few pages into the book and I didn't think I wanted to finish it. This book seems to be a poorly thrown together collection of anecdotes, unnecessary appendices and the authors own political viewpoints. The anecdotes/oral history content was both the best and worst of the book. The good ones (such as the Ranger Battalion Surgeon) I found to be extremely interesting however, most were expletive laced blog type content that held no historical value for me whatsoever. It's a good looking (and extremely heavy) book but I recommend looking elsewhere.

This book goes beyond the usual history books or poorly written "to be a Ranger" type efforts. Lots of first-hand accounts of Rangers in action, lots of truth too. Issues such as the changing of the beret, morale and problems with the chain of command are all discussed honestly. This is an account of the modern Ranger, post Vietnam, Mosby and Rogers are briskly covered as are the World War II Rangers. The main detail is saved for more modern times. Mr. Bahmanyar obviously knows his subject and has been blessed with the cooperation of the 75th Ranger Regiment, making the information that little more accurate and useful.
Overall a great book, if you only read one book on the Rangers then this should be it.

I am a Ranger currently serving in 2nd Batt at Ft. Lewis. This book is very poorly written, and is interjected with the political views of the auther (someone who could have used a ghost-writer). I appreciate Mir's service, but I wasted money on this book on my last deployment, introducing it to the burn pile rather than lugging it back home. It did do well on the fire, so if you want to shell out your money for bonfire fuel, be my guest. If you want accurate and well-written information on my beloved regiment, look elsewhere!

If you wanna learn about ranger history after 1974, there is a lot of basic info in here. If you wanna learn about anything before 1974 - go somewhere else. The history of the ranger up to 1974 is compressed into 100 pages and I found one MAJOR mistake - the author claims that the 2nd ranger bn was not the first unit on top of point du hoc, he claims that the 116th reg of the 29th infantry was there first. He even quotes a section of stephen ambrose's "D-day" to back it up, only he quotes from the chapter about the 5th rangers and the 116th at Omaha. If he made a simple mistake like that one, how do I know that the rest of the book isnt filled them? All in all, I'm glad I got this book as a gift, because it isnt worth the money.....

As a former 2/75 Ranger I basically bought the book to find out about more recent missions and activities of the Regiment. I found the book to not be a history as much as a personal opinion of political decisions, the Regiment and the Army. Time and time again he uses his opinion as part of the history and uses "his experience" to speculate what might have happened. I expected a history but that is not what this is. I wish I hadn't of spent the money on this book.

I really wanted to like this book. Interesting information, the use of actual events to bring the history alive, and an easy writing style are all in its favor. But I can't get around the authors constant politicalization of events and decisions - esp. as he relates more modern history. It becomes VERY obvious that the author has a bias against certain people and their decisions (ok, we all do, that's fine) but when relating the chronology and facts about a battle or a fire fight that is not the place to beat the reader over the head with your views. Makes it difficult to keep reading - I've had the book for 6 months and have still not finished it.

SHADOW WARRIORS: A HISTORY OF THE U.S. ARMY RANGERS
MIR BAHMANYAR
OSPREY PUBLISHING, 2006
QUALITY SOFTCOVER, $29.95, 352 PAGES, PHOTOGRAPHS, MAPS, CHARTS


The term "shadow warriors" is a sobriquet long applied to the U.S. Army Special Forces, who by nature of their mission do fight their wars in the shadows. Revisionists are now attempting to tug on this tent to cover all the special operations units. While U.S. Army Special Forces operators have their own military occupational speciality codes (the 18-series); the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger) is at its core a conventional regiment of highly-trained light infantry. While in point of fact the U.S. Army Special Forces Regiment could perform any of the missions of the 75th Infantry Regiment (Ranger), and sometimes do on a very small scale. But the pendulum doesn't swing in the opposing direction though. Thus for the author to ascribe the title "Shadow Warriors" to the U.S. Army Rangers is over-reaching at best and intentionally deceptive at its worst.

The short paragraph about the author, inside the back jacket cover, does little to establish the credibility of the author. A bachelor's degree does not an historian make. It indicates that he served in the 2nd Battalion of the Regiment, as a machine gunner, but not that he qualified as a Ranger. It also indicates that he served as a "Training NCO", but not that he was an NCO.

The physical quality of the book is excellant. It is well-made, with good quality pages, clear and sharp photographs, charts, and maps.

The content is, however, problematic. This book has the content quality of an internet website downloaded and published as a book. It has the same type of errors that are so replete on an internet website as well.

The author has certainly been assiduous in compiling his material. He isn't to be faulted for that, but it is in the culling out of false history and the military equivalent of "urban legends" for which the author can certainly be faulted. This book is so replete with errors of fact that they become distracting.

The author relates the early history of what the Ranger Regiment has adopted as their history. This includes the exploits of Major Robert Rogers and his famous, or infamous, St. Francis Raid on the Abenaki tribe, a tale which follows the traditional telling. It is doubtful, however, that this raid could be considered "successful", as he calls it, in the actual event. Canadian archeologists have investigated the Abneki burial site for the victims of that raid, mostly women and children, and fewer than Rogers reported. Further, most of his command, was lost on the retreat from that raid, pursued virtually to the gates of the British Fort Number 4 by the Abneki, who were infuriated by the attack on their village in the off-season of war. Also, the author fails to mention that the Father of the U.S. Army Rangers remained loyal to King and Country and fought against George Washington and his Continental Army during the American Revolution.

On Page 63, the author mentions "the 505th Airborne Infantry Regiment, eventually known for smoke jumping in the Pacific Northwest". The data given for what he is relating was October 9, 1950. In the real world, the unit was the "Triple Nickels", the 555th, and they didn't get around to smoke-jumping until July, 1945. During World War II, the Japanese set ballons adrift from Japan on the prevailing westerly winds. These ballons contained incendiary devices intended to cause forest fires; wood being a strategic material during the war. The 555th was re-designated the 505th Airborne Infantry Regiment in December, 1947. The 555th was sent to counter this somewhat unique strategic bombing codenamed Operation FIREFLY.

On Page 68, the author relates the story as to how a long range patrol unit came by their (non-regulation) beret, a headgear formally unique to the U.S. Army Special Forces (the Green Berets). The author doesn't correct the assertion in this tale, however, that the "British Commandos" wear a maroon beret.

On Page 73, the author attempte to describe the early days of long-range patrolling in Vietnam. The truth of that period continues to become more obscure as the years go by. This has been assisted in no small part by a relatively small group of former long range reconnaissance patrol members (the "LURRPs") who have created a cottage industry with their published tales of heroic derring-do, concurrently trashing the history-and reputations-of some very brave men. To be charitable, the history of that period, as cited in this book, is "incomplete".

On Page 74, South Vietnamese Ranger units, or Biet Ding-Quan, are described as "led by U.S. Army Ranger advisors....". Nonsense, these units were led by officers of the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam or ARVN. Many of these Biet Dong-Quan officers had served in the French Army or the French Foreign Legion, and some had even fought alongside Ho Chi Minh as a member of the Viet Minh, before moving south when the new Republic of Vietnam was establsihed. Many of these officers were extremely brave and had military experience well beyond the scope of the U.S. Army advisors who served alongside them.

On Page 115, the caption describes the "duck-hunter uniform" worn by those in the photograph, which does no credit to BRAVO Company, 2nd Battalion. The leader of this information, and many of his men, appear to have never been taught the proper way to "blouse" their boots, one mark of a paratrooper, which all 75th Rangers are required to attend. In point of fact, the "duck-hunter" camouflage pattern is totally different from the woodland camouflage pattern shown in this photograph. The duck-hunter camouflage pattern was used by the U.S. Marine Corps and eite U.S. Army units, from World War II until the early days of the Vietnam War. Often uniforms and equipment in this pattern were reversible, with a winter color on one side and summer colors on the opposite. Hence the old saying in the U.S. Marine Corps "green side out" and "brown side out".

On Page 207, the author slides the reference "Quiet Professionals" into the text while referencing the death of a U.S. Navy SEAL. Again, the author demonstrates an unusual degree of unfamiliarity with military terminology, for one ascribed to be a member of the special operations community. "Quiet Professionals" is the officially approved term used to describe the U.S. Army Special Forces (Green Berets). It is a term intensely disliked by the old SF operators, who were extremely professional in their work, but who tended to break things and blow things up. While they don't necessarily approve of the new term, they will stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the new breed of U.S. Army Special Forces operator in taking offense to that term being used by or for other Special Operations Forces (SOF).

On Page 236, the author writes: "Operation ANACONDA continued for another two weeks and was hailed an unqualified and absolute success by General Tommy Franks." This operation reflects upon the reputation of Franks. It was his war, what is he supposed to say. In 2005, however, when this book was published, Operation ANACONDA is now generally accepted as a flawed operation, whose failures have resulted in the resurgence of the insurgency in Afghanistan and allowed the escape of important figures still involved in what the Bush Administration has described as the Global War On Terror or GWOT.

This is certainly not an exhaustive list of errors or omissions in this book. It is a random sampling merely cited in order to illustrate the problem to be encountered by any reader intending to rely upon this book as a reliable reference on this subject.

A substantial amount of this book is taken directly from official sources. Simply because a source is "official" doesn't make it accurate. Indeed, the function of the military historian is, in part, to correct the official record.

The potential reader is warned not to use this book as a reference. Its value is as a place to start, before turning to more scholarly sources. Rather than "A HISTORY OF THE U.S. ARMY RANGERS", perhaps the subtitle of this book should have been "The STORY OF THE U.S. ARMY RANGERS". That would have been truth in advertising.


Lt. Colonel Robert A. Lynn, Florida Guard
Orlando, Florida