Intelligence In War, John Keegan

[Solid]

In this book John Keegan, arguably one of the most prominent and respected military historians, uses several case studies to present a detailed and extremely informative history of Intelligence and it's role in warfare. The format is very much like McRaven's Spec Ops book, but with more narrative elements and less Relative Superiority graphs. The earliest case study is of Nelson's pursuit of Napolean's Egyptian-landing force across the Med. ocean, and the last is of the SAS raids on the Falklands.
His work is surprisingly analytical and austere considering the amount of enjoyable narrative (it reads like a thriller), and the case studies are all of interesting subjects.
I've now got The Face of Battle, The Mask of Command, and A History of Warfare, all by him, ready on the deck that is my over-loaded desk.

Solid

[chipw]

I have not read “Intelligence in War� but I immensely enjoyed “the Face of Battle�. You’re correct that Keegan makes interesting, almost novel like reading out of what many would consider dry reading.
The “face of Battle� analyzes three battles: Agincourt, Waterloo, and the Somme if I remember right. Not from the perspective of generals or historical strategists but from the men on the ground. He does this while also keeping the reader abreast of the larger picture of the battle.
His premise is that battle is a brutal affair often waged with the participants not knowing the “big picture�. It is only after the battle when the accounts are written that things take on a tidy appearance. He also challenges some long standing ideas about how battles were fought. The French knight's charge at Agincourt comes to mind. He gives some good arguments that a horse would not charge headlong into a wall of pikes.

Very good book.

[Solid]

I'm halfway through The Face of Battle. Much like IiW, it's an extremely easy and enjoyable read. I particularly like the excellent preamble on What is Military History. Keegan seems adept at arguing with himself, for the reader to see, before reaching a logical conclusion which is then carried on into the next point. This mental formatting means that I was brought seamlessly through the book (to where I am) without really noticing.

I'm not sure if I'd say that he was looking at the battle from the view of the soldiers, though, or at least not in the way BHD or We Were Soldiers Once.. does. He DOES look at the soldiers, but then steps back to take a mid-range view, somewhere in between 1st level analysis of individuals but still maintaining a tactical view of the battle.

It's very interesting writing for that reason alone, and as you said, his postulation on the interaction between different units is extremely interesting. He conveys technical information to ease the process.

Solid