I normally do not post on books that I haven't read completely and enjoyed just a little bit. I'm conflicted about this book, though, because it's well written and historically accurate yet it comes across as a diatribe or polemic designed to support George Bush and his war policies.
Here are some excerpts from page 12. I leave you, the reader, to decide if you'd like it or not.
Leadership in democracy also demands transcendence-the constant reminder to a free and affluent citizenry that their killing and dying is nevertheless for a purpose beyond mere victory. ...In the months to come we must be retold that we war to remember the dead, to save the innocent, and to end the violence.
All true enough but we must remember that this retelling comes after the war has started. Before we begin the war we need to think long and hard about whether it's neccessary, neccessary now, and do we have the army we'd like to have to start it. ???
Democracies are derided as decadent and soft. They are neither when aroused, but it requires vision to convince a complacent citizen that moderation in war is imbecility, that tragically real humanity is to put to rest those who would slay the helpless.
Absolutely true as any general or military historian will tell you.
For our generals to achieve successful battle command there must not be merely confidence, but at times understated arrogance as well. Caesar, Wellington, Nelson, and Grant were not much concerned with what the enemy might do-are our European allies on board? might our response prompt greater conflagration in the Muslim world? can we conquer this new face of terror?-but focused instead on what they knew they would and could do to the enemy.
Here's where Mr. Hanson begins to stray. Generals indeed need to be cocky, those mentioned certainly were cocky generals. But the questions raised are not military questions, they are political questions to be answered by the civilian leadership. In Grant's case this was Mr. Lincoln.
Still, we have been lectured by moderate Arab regimes on what we cannot do, even to the extent that the naming of our campaign "Infinite Justice" is inappropriate. We are waiting for leaders who will advise them sternly that nomenclature is the least of their worries, when three thousand of our kin are killed in the streets by men from their shores. Periodic scariness is not a vice in military leadership.
All true enough, but there is no point in antagonizing folks who don't have a dog in the fight. Using the name "Crusade" clearly was not going to win us allies in the Muslim world.