View Full Version : The Savage Wars of Peace
Looking to see if anyone has read The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power by Maxx Boot
Looking for commits good or bad
PSYOP Rob
04-10-2006, 08:19
I read it and thoroughly enjoyed it. Lots of good information on the smaller scale conflicts and on operations that havent garnered as much literary attention as the World Wars or Korea and Vietnam. Many famous names in here at early points in their careers, learning the important lessons that would serve them well later on.
PSYOP Rob thanks for the INFO
Very good book on America's small wars, IMO. Goes to show that we've done well in handling insurgencies and the like before, and this is nothing new, despite everyone's claims. That whole learning from history thing, I suppose. My one criticism of the book is that Boot has a real love affair with the USMC, as is very evident in his one paragraph mention of SF's role in Vietnam compared with the lenghty description of USMC CAPs.
Airbornelawyer
04-10-2006, 10:37
Very good book on America's small wars, IMO. Goes to show that we've done well in handling insurgencies and the like before, and this is nothing new, despite everyone's claims. That whole learning from history thing, I suppose. My one criticism of the book is that Boot has a real love affair with the USMC, as is very evident in his one paragraph mention of SF's role in Vietnam compared with the lenghty description of USMC CAPs.I suppose it might not be Boot's fault as much as the fact that the Marine Corps is generally better at public relations than the Army in general and SF in particular. In any event, the book makes a good case that the Corps has been involved in FID for much of its history, notwithstanding the Corps' institutional focus on amphibious warfare.
The main thing that struck me was the idealism of the American military and America in general. Even when we were engaging in what was outwardly simple colonial ventures, we seemed determined to improve peoples' lots. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it wasn't simply "support your local dictator." We built roads and schools, provided medical services, improved sanitation and tried to inculcate democratic values (with mixed success). This idealist strand, often characterized as Wilsonian, was practiced well before and after Wilson's administration by people not usually called Wilsonians.
Ironically, Wilson's administration comes out badly in the book on Wilsonianism. Every improvement made to Mexicans' lives after the Vera Cruz operation collapsed when Wilson pulled U.S. forces out. The Punitive Expedition also did little but poison relations along the border and comes across as the "cruise missile diplomacy" of its day.
I suppose it might not be Boot's fault as much as the fact that the Marine Corps is generally better at public relations than the Army in general and SF in particular.
I agree with you, but I tend to expect a bit more from someone doing serious research while in the process of writing a book.
Boot came to Leavenworth to deliver a lecture on his book-----I left the Big Blue Bedroom thinking that his knowledge of counterinsurgency was about Powerpoint-deep. I asked him if the Lodge Act used after WWII to bring Eastern European nationals into the US Army (many of whom formed the original 10th SFG) could be applied today; he hadn't the faintest clue what I was talking about. But his books are popular and they have secured him a seat on the Council of Foreign Relations---which means he's pretty much teflon-coated as far as the academic community goes.
AL, RAZOR, and Blueboy, Thanks for the commits.
Looking at getting it this weekend. Saw a review and thought it looked good. Nothing on here as a Review or Recommendation.
which means he's pretty much teflon-coated as far as the academic community goes.
Telfon-coated... Now that's some skin :p
Thanks
I really liked his critique of the Powell Doctrine. But, what do I know, I was never a General. Can anyone with significant experience offer some incite to Boot's analysis?