Transformation of War

[NousDefionsDoc]

By Martin Van Creveld
Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029331552/102-5927847-8698569)
Anybody read it? What do you think?

[lrd]

I haven't read this one, but I have his "Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton" in my library.

Edited to correct spelling.

[NousDefionsDoc]

What do you think of it?

[lrd]

It's the only book I have that deals with military history from a purely logistical perspective. I learned a lot, but don't know if that is because I didn't know much about the subject to begin with. (Most of my classes deal with engineering logistics.) He is thorough in his research, and uses a wide variety of sources. I like that. I enjoyed his writing style as well. I bought the book, initially, because it was highly recommended to me. It was published in 1977, and has been reprinted 19 times since. I would read his other work on the strength of this one.

Is the one you're looking at a new publication?

Edit: I just looked at the publication info: 1991.

[NousDefionsDoc]

1991

[lrd]

Now I really want to read it.

From the Harvard International Review: http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/?id=408

Van Creveld Is No Von Clausewitz
"The Transformation of War" by Martin van Creveld
Col. Tiiu Kera, USAF
Issue: Energy
Section: Review Essays
Abstract: Van Creveld promises: a)"to address some of the most fundamental problems presented by war in all ages" and b)to provide a "new, non-Clausewitzian fremawork (sic) for thinking about war, while at the same time trying to look into the future." There is no definitive theory, though. The essence of the book is that for one, "conventional" warfare is obsolete and will be replaced by "low intensity warfare" and also that modern weapons are useless. The book creates the impression that it was a first draft accidently published.


The National Review didn't like the implications of his conclusions:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n6_v43/ai_10650161

[The Reaper]

I read it, a long while ago, and have met Dr. Crevald.

While I do not agree with him completely, I found him to be among the more plausible of the theoreticians (Tofflers, Huntingtons, et al.)

I would say that events since the book was published largely tend to bear him out and make his observations prescient, though as the NR reviewer noted, we must maintain conventional forces to deal with conventional threats.

Just my .02.

TR

[NousDefionsDoc]

Rma?