Customer Reviews

Winning the War: Advanced Weapons, Strategies, and Concepts for the Post-9/11 World

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

 

 

Do you ever get the sneaking feeling that we are going about this "War on Terror" all wrong? Then read further as Colonel John Alexander knows of what he speaks and he brings it all to bear here in Winning The War.

"World War X" is upon us and Alexander suspects that we will fail to win it promptly, if ever. He sees the scope of the problem and our political leaders (evidenced by results to date) demonstrably do not. We do have the means to win but lack the ken and the will. We are fighting an asymmetric 21st century war with a 20th century mindset.

The Colonel has expertise in the strategy, operations and tactics of war and educates us on the mix of sensors, lethal and non-lethal weapons that are available now and those that are coming soon. He then shows us in several scenarios how these elements can be used together successfully not only to win battles but also to save lives.

He will surprise some with his suggestions on how to cut-off funding for this enemy. No political sacred cows for Alexander as he exposes what must be done and why. Winning this war as outlined by him will make for some strange political bedfellows indeed.

Alexander sees further than most as he covers some potentially useful technologies that are truly cutting-edge. He has been in the insiders position to know about these esoterica first-hand and describes how they potentially offer huge returns in this war and for society in general.

Winning The War delivers a comprehensive appraisal of the current situation and how to get out of this mess that appears to get worst by the week. This, to a society sorely in need of hearing more than ideological aphorisms from our leaders and politically-based rhetoric from pundits of the left and right.

Most refreshing for me was the out-of-the-box thinking throughout the book. Cynics may discount some of his suggestions with a "We could never do that!"-attitude. Know that Alexander is not intellectualizing, one need only look at his background to know that he has lived, pushing the boundaries of human potential. He knows that each of us is capable of more than we know and so is our society as a whole if we just take the time to examine. Start with this book.

A must read for all freethinkers.

Col. Alexander's Winning the War: Advanced Weapons, Strategies, and Concepts for the Post-911 World is a painful read, but the very pain is testimony to the gravity of the U.S. security/defense situation and his accurate depiction of what needs to be changed. Like any good intelligence officer, he does not alter the facts, but merely illuminates them with enlightened speculation. "...weak democracies may actually exacerbate the potential for regional instability. In practice, democracy is very complex and requires experience gained through time and trial. It cannot be bestowed on emerging societies and expected to be successful. We simply must stop anticipating that other countries will act according to the American model. " p. 247.

By admitting that things are not `all right', but that there are only problems waiting for solution, we can move onto what may be reasonable and realistic remedies to the crisis at hand. "In the United States we simply do not comprehend the importance of history and consistently focus on near-term solutions based on symptoms. Rarely do we attempt to understand causal relationships. If the problem can't be stated in a twenty-second sound bite, we just forget about it." P 183.

Policy is dependent on intelligence, and the later has been used by the U.S. regularly, though hesitatingly and inconsistently, over the years. For the U.S., a great dilemma arises when the information is gathered and kept subordinate to political correctness and expediency, due to the bureaucratic process' dedication to transparency, impartiality and the rule of law. The tension between `special operations' mentality and openness, between ends and means, makes this study of the problem not only interesting academically, but also potentially useful in practice. "The three best methods to determine the likelihood that an active terrorist is attempting to board a flight are profiling, profiling, and profiling." P. 191. "Now the War on Terror has brought a new focus on assassination as an implement of conflict...there is only one way to deal with terrorists-you kill them." Pp. 198-199.

The solutions depicted throughout various vignettes are sound and practical, one of which pertains to ..." revamping the military personnel system. Skilled retirees abounded, most willing to be recalled to fight if an urgent need existed. There was no need to have members of the military serve twenty years consecutively. Over the decades a small number of reservists had proven that intermittent periods on extended active duty could be effective and they could keep up with their counterparts. A strategic response would be to move retirees into homeland security positions and push active-duty personnel into fielded forces abroad." P. 153 "...we should develop a unified organization that meets today's requirements. The old system is anachronistic." P. 251.

Excellent...this is the wake-up call.

I read this good book, here in Brazil.This book has chapters, about how to fight and win the war, against islamic terrorism.There's many pages about anti-gravity weapons and other weapons of the future.
The main problem of this book is to forget the main weakness of islamic terror.At first, there's the money.Islamic world gets its money, from oil and natural gas.Retire oil and gas money and then arab world will has less exportation than Spain.And there's nothing on this book, about how to cut oil's money to islamic world.At second, islamic world doesn't supports religion freedom.The Sharia(islamic law) tells that any moslem converting to another religion, should be killed.In other words, this book doesn't tells you, that the main foes of islamic terrorism are capitalism and christianism.
About the other problem of islam -agriculture- there's nothing.Islamic world can't feed itself.Infidels farmers feed islamic world.How to use agriculture as a weapon against islamic terror, has no place on this good book.

Unflinching analysis of the War Against Islamic Fundamentalism, mislabeled as War on Terror for reasons of political correctness. John Alexander is entirely right in that the tactics necessary to win this war are much too brutal for most Americans to stomach - until enough terror acts occur on the US soil to turn public opinion around. What Alexander does not seem to consider (and the reason I give 4 stars) is that Islamic fundamentalists, being aware of American strengths and weaknesses, may deliberately avoid striking at US homeland and instead concentrate on destabilizing their own countries. That way some Islamic states may fall to fundamentalism without ever provoking US and the rest of Western world out of its self-imposed restraints. Recent attacks in Indonesia certainly fit this pattern.

We are fighting wars the same way that civilizations have been and it seems that those tactics have not changed a whole lot. In this book there are some interesting tactics for war because the world has changed.

This is really two books; the first is about military technology and the second is on policy in the war on Terrorism. Alexander does a pretty good job of presenting an overview of technology (lethal and non-lethal) currently under development for each of the military services (chap 1-3). Alexander is heavily involved in non-lethal weapons development, but does a balanced job of reviewing all tech.

Although his book is about military tech, he repeatedly emphasizes that tech is not enough. Unfortunately the book fails with the last six chapters when he moves away from the tech and into policy. Part 3 is the weakest (chap 10-12) where Alexander discusses ways to cut support to terrorists which, at a macro-level, are not new (i.e. cut off their funding), and are even radical (i.e. legalize drugs). He also goes into odd policy discussions on the press and assasination.

The real disappointment comes when you realize that after all his discussions and expertise on the use of tech, he doesn't tie up a way ahead or how to link the tech with non-technical factors. None of his recommendations or conclutions go into how, why, or where we need to go with tech and its integration into doctrine, tactics, and strategy. His scenarios only present glimpses and no programs.

This book offers up a non-detailed summary of weapons systems that are being contemplated and tested for the next round of wars. Most of it is obvious from reading Popular Mechanics. The author attempts to write up possible scenarios as to how such weapons might be used in an imagined confrontation in the near future. Sadly he also comments on political and ethical considerations in the last part of the book that that sound like the ravings of a lunatic. ( For example: In an effort to stem the tide of murders in the Middle East the author recommends that we do as the Russians and target the families of suicide bombers, hack up their bodies and send the parts to their relatives. Apparently it worked. If you like hearing this sort of thing as a serious policy proposal coming from a high ranking American military officer then you might like the book.) It makes you wonder what a lifetime of service in the military actually does to your mind.