What are you reading?

[Brett327]

Anything by Sam Huntington or Fukuyama are pretty much seminal works in the IR field.

 

[Dewse5150]

Just finished "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin. He lays a great foundation for conservative ideals and has solid arguments on a wide array of political subjects. He is concise and doesn't ramble on, every sentence is meaningful and it makes it much more interesting to read.

I also finished "Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What everyone needs to Know" by Singer. This not as good as the hype and could have been written in under 200 pages. It is good for general knowledge about the challenges of cybersecurity and cyberwar. This book is on the CNOs reading list for the professional reading program.

 

[Flash]

Did you ever get to Castles of Steel - and if so, any thoughts?

I got it but haven't started it yet, it is a pretty weighty tome (literally) and I am going start on it during my next reserve exercise next month.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Anything by Sam Huntington or Fukuyama are pretty much seminal works in the IR field.

Suppose "Soldier And the State" will never be translate into Russian. Otherwise a half of officer corps here would quit after reading, indeed. And wonder if any US service academy cadets/mid'men ever saw it in a library.

 

[Recovering LSO]

And wonder if any US service academy cadets/mid'men ever saw it in a library.

What would make you think it wouldn't be there?

(yes, I've read it).

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Before commission? In my opinion, it is too honest to be appreciated by officer candidate. Yet historical narrative the author took in consideration (land wars 1806-1953) seems to be very complicated for a layman, and it helps to skip a sentenses like "military career in US is mostly a prelude for, or a sideline of, the main career in business, sport, law and alike". It's true. Not reassuring at all, right?

 

[Recovering LSO]

Just not sure we're really into limiting what our young'uns have access or "permission" to read. If you want to dive into On War or Soldier and the State, or have a subscription to Mother Jones delivered to Bancroft Hall - I'm confident you won't be told no based on complexity of text or apparent political leanings.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

Ok, this is not an objection. Just two different worlds, as usually. I'm in China again now, and this is the third one. Military brat's realm.

 

[ryan1234]

Anything by Sam Huntington or Fukuyama are pretty much seminal works in the IR field.

I think that "The End of History and the Last Man" is a good reason why everyone should take even the 'seminal' works with a grain of salt. Some works influence the self-licking ice cream cones of rhetoric, for better or worse.

As a side note, "The Craft of International History" by Marc Trachtenberg is worth a read, as is this short article at WOTR: http://warontherocks.com/2016/11/thinking-historically-a-guide-for-strategy-and-statecraft/

 

[Brett327]

I'm not sure I understand your criticism. Academia, to a certain extent, is founded on the principle of the self-licking ice cream cone, but once in a while, it generates some good ideas. These guys, at least in End of History/Clash, were describing a theoretical framework to explain the political realities of their day. No product of human thought should be taken as gospel.

 

[Gatordev]

No product of human thought should be taken as gospel.

Well, except maybe the gospel.

 

[Brett327]

Well, except maybe the gospel.

I think my point stands.

 

[SynixMan]

I found this fascinating, regarding the decision making around Syria's nuclear reactor.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4900816,00.html

 

[Flash]

Did you ever get to Castles of Steel - and if so, any thoughts?

I finally got through it and I thought it was an excellent book, tied together the big picture of the war at sea during WWI much better than anything else I have come across. It also gave a thorough and detailed but easily understandable description of the Battle Of Jutland. Most of the histories I have read of that were almost too detailed and focused on many of the individual actions while Castles of Steel focused on the bigger picture.

A couple of observations; Germany comes across as the bad guy again just like in Dreadnought (except for Bismarck they really don't seem to do 'big' strategy very well at all and they were really arrogant), Jellicoe comes across much better by far than Beatty even on a personal level, Churchill learned some hard lessons but I think he came out better for it when his country needed him 20 years later and command and control in in the thick of a naval battle is really hard (a lesson from Neptune's Inferno too).

If you have the time I highly recommend both Castles of Steel and Dreadnought, I read them in chronological sequence and they fit together well.

 

[Randy Daytona]

I finally got through it and I thought it was an excellent book, tied together the big picture of the war at sea during WWI much better than anything else I have come across. It also gave a thorough and detailed but easily understandable description of the Battle Of Jutland. Most of the histories I have read of that were almost too detailed and focused on many of the individual actions while Castles of Steel focused on the bigger picture.

A couple of observations; Germany comes across as the bad guy again just like in Dreadnought (except for Bismarck they really don't seem to do 'big' strategy very well at all and they were really arrogant), Jellicoe comes across much better by far than Beatty even on a personal level, Churchill learned some hard lessons but I think he came out better for it when his country needed him 20 years later and command and control in in the thick of a naval battle is really hard (a lesson from Neptune's Inferno too).

If you have the time I highly recommend both Castles of Steel and Dreadnought, I read them in chronological sequence and they fit together well.

Thanks for the review. Looks like 2 books I need to get to this Spring.