5 comments about The Long Road Home: A Story of War and Family.

1. I have just finnished reading The Long Road Home and must commend Martha Raddatz on her brilliant book. I have been a friend of the Weibleys(Trysha)for years and decided that it was past due for me to read. It was not political or opinionated in any way, it was factual and desctiptive like nothing I have ever read.Since There is one part of this book where Seth gets out to clean a windshild..knowing him the way I do, I HAD to laugh through the tears. It was just soooo something he would do.
   Thank you for writing this amazing book for the world to read. It is integral to all Americans to know what REALLY happend that day. I know that the Weibleys apreciate it as do I and all that I will be passing this on to.



2. I saw Martha Raddatz speak at the Pritzker Military Library last week (June 2008) and bought the book there on the spot. I have read it straight through in a couple of days and wish that every American would read this book or one with a similar story. It seems that Iraq has become background noise in light of the energy crisis and the country's economic woes.
   
   It's easy to forget that we are at war and that American servicemen are losing their lives. This book brings that reality home. It's not a fun read - it's a distinctly uncomfortable and sometimes depressing one. But reading stories like this might go some ways towards breaking through this desensitization we seem to have as a country when it comes to the war in Iraq.
   
   I think that the portions of the book written from the view of the soldiers are solid and really brought me into the action of that awful battle. I won't ever know what it is like to be a soldier who engages in battle and is wounded or sees friends wounded or, worse, killed in action. But this book at least makes me really think about it and gives a good description of how these soldiers felt.
   
   On the other hand, I did not think that the parts of the book written from the perspective of the families was as strong. I am not sure if this is the result of Ms. Raddatz respecting the wives of the killed soldiers and not interviewing them directly or just because her passion lies with the stories that these men have to tell more than with the stories of their families. Either way, it made the book feel a little unbalanced to me.
   
   All that being said, I think that this book is important. The story that it tells is important not only because the battle it details was a turning point in the war but because it reminds us that our fellow countrymen are going through unspeakable things. This war remains relevant and I applaud the efforts of Ms. Raddatz and others like her for fighting to keep it in the media.



3. Excellent read about the war in Iraq. I bought this book after I found parts contained action my son was involved in. Found my son's name and picture of truck he was in. He was trying to save Cindy Sheenan's son Casey. He was ambushed also and was hit in his foot. They lost eight good soliders that day. I hope they make a movie someday. My son is a IV and he was shot on 4-4-4 in Sadr City Iraq. He now has PTSD and is divorced from the woman he loves. Where is Cindy Sheenan now?



4. This book is a must read in this election year. Put all else aside, pick up this book and struggle through the reality of what is going on and few of us bother to realize. This is not a pleasant read, this is not a feel good story. This is the truth of what happens when politicians make decisions based on their own legacy in mind. This is how those decisions affect you, me and our neighbors. These kids are in a horrible situation in Iraq. If the evidence to enter the war was real, OK, this is duty. In retrospect, this is a sin. No one should face 10 minutes of what these husbands, boyfirends, sons and daughters are going through. Martha Raddatz did an incredible job of piecing this story together. If 10 % of this is accurate, no one should be subjected to this kind of horror. I can tell you, having had a brother serve in Vietnam in the late 60s, there is nothing you hope to avoid than a taxi, your parish priest or minister, and a stranger dressed in a military uniform in the middle of the night. Soldiers,, families are all suffering, the problem is, they are in the minority. The majority of us simply bitch about high gas prices. We don't have a clue what is going on. Read this book and become informed. When you vote in November, consider what you are doing, seriously. Is this war in the middle east worth it? Is it winnable? Is there an honorable way out. Don't just assume there is, understand what these soldiers are going through and make sure the way you vote is not going to prolong this disaster.



5. In Iraq right now and had to read this. Wasn't as good as I thought it would be but it gives a perspective.

5 comments about Flyboys: A True Story of Courage.

1. This book should be used to teach an American reader the Japanese perspective before and during WWII. Bradley delves deep into historical Japanese views of America (many critics often confuse these views with the views of the author). Bradley cites specific American events the Japanese used and taught to justify their American hate, their militiary dedication, and their own manifest destiny. If you like to read history rarely taught in your everyday classroom, don't miss this one.



2. A book that goes into great detail about the Japanese-Korean_Chinese relationship before and during the war as well as the American_Japanese Relationship is the book 'Flyboys: A True Story of Courage ' . Yes the description says its about American Pilots, and yes it is. BUT the first 1/3 to half of the book intimately describes the Japanese-Korean_Chinese relationship and how the Japanese went from *stone age to massive war machine in only a few decades, It also explains the Japanese mentality back then and how they became like that and WHY. This is not just a book about some American Pilots. It is a (sometimes gruesome)detailed look into the origins of the pacific war and more important the Why's ...
   Edit your post:
   A book that goes into great detail about the Japanese-Korean_Chinese relationship before and during the war as well as the American_Japanese Relationship is the book 'Flyboys: A True Story of Courage ' . Yes the description says its about American Pilots, and yes it is. BUT the first 1/3 to half of the book intimately describes the Japanese-Korean_Chinese relationship and how the Japanese went from *stone age to massive war machine in only a few decades, It also explains the Japanese mentality back then and how they became like that and WHY. This is not just a book about some American Pilots. It is a (sometimes gruesome)detailed look into the origins of the pacific war and more important the Why's ...
   [Cancel] [Delete post]
   Guidelines



3. The author begins the book trashing America for its Indian policies in the 19th Century, but ignores how Indians brutalized each other when their Asian ancestors migrated to the Americas, and later. The issue is tangential to Japanese atrocities to American prisoners of war. Its an excuse to kick America.
   
   Leave this bilge at the college where you teach.



4. This book really surprised me. It was the first one I read by this author (and I will now certainly read Flags of Our Fathers), and I thought it would be a super-patriotic book about how brave the American airmen were and how awful the Japanese were to them. What really surprised me is that Bradley gives such a balanced view of the two sides in the war, and, while not favoring the Japanese in any way, helped me as a reader to understand the war from their perspective. It also pointed out how horrific and dehumanizing war is to soldiers on both sides who are fighting each other, and how they come to cease to view the enemy as human beings. I certainly came away from the book heartbroken over what happened to the American flyboys and how much their families suffered their loss. I also came away from the book convinced that one should be very wary when a government demonizes people on the other side of a conflict, and how important it is never to forget that all people are human beings with the same needs for love, family, security.



5. This book had promise of telling a story that needed to be told of Japanese atrocities during WW2. However, the author was not focused in his efforts electing instead to tell the story of airpower in the military and trying to justif the actions of the Japanese by telling of what the Japanese held as US atrocities. In fact he himself indicates thet he might have crossed the line when he stopped just short of calling one naval aviator he interviewed a babykiller as a result of a mission he had flown. Interspersed within these pages was an effort to tell in very graphic detail the story of the death of several US Naval Aviators. Overall a poor experience and would cause me to stop and think before I read another one of his books

3 comments about MAJOR GENERAL ROBERT E RODES OF THE ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA: A Biography.

1. "If he could," author Darrell Collins writes, "Rodes might object to being the subject of a biography. It is even possible that he would not have agreed to be interviewed for one." Yet despite his disdain of self-promotion, even Robert Rodes could not object to the fine treatment, from beginning to end, that he has received in the pages of Major General Robert E. Rodes of the Army of Northern Virginia. Collins takes us on a truly captivating journey, beginning with Rodes' days at the Virginia Military Institute and leading us to that fateful afternoon in September 1864 at Third Winchester. If you begin this book -- as many Civil War readers may -- with a pejorative preconception of Robert Rodes, be prepared to at least reconsider the conventional wisdom.
   
   Unlike most modern scholarly biographies, which merely recount an impersonal litany of dates and accomplishments, Collins helps us to encounter Robert Rodes the man; moreover, he demonstrates the linkage between his personal attributes and his military performance. Certainly, his life experiences before the war shaped the characteristics of his command on the battlefield. In downright captivating prose, the author gives us a portrait of a loyal and loving friend and family man; a diligent and well-admired engineer and scholar; and, finally, an efficient and capable officer who was able to demand the discipline of his men with a generous heart. I concur with the sentiments expressed below that you will find yourself emotional when reading of Rodes' demise, so young and so promising.
   
   Not only is this biography well-written, it is scrupulously researched and well-documented. Considering that Rodes' widow destroyed his papers after the war, this is a stunning achievement. Collins has done his homework and then some, scouring the letters and diaries of Rodes' men and associates in some twelve states and the District of Columbia. His work is based largely on these unpublished primary sources, which are then supplemented by a survey of the pertinent secondary literature where necessary.
   
   Cartographer Timothy Reese has augmented the text with a number of illuminating battle and troop position maps. As a whole, the book is very attractive and a "must read" for any student or scholar of the military history of the Civil War. I have already found it quite helpful and have cited it in my own work. While I do not agree with all of the author's assessments of Rodes' battlefield performances, he passionately makes his case in this first-class romp through the Civil War's Eastern Theater.



2. Executive summary: A very good read! Clearly written, very thorough, and covers the topic to full satisfaction.
   
   Review:
   
   You know its a very good biography when you feel saddened when reading about the death of the subject. But that's getting ahead of myself.
   
   Mr. Collins sets out to produce a complete biography of one of the best general's in the Army of Northern Virginia. A story of a man well-respected by his superiors, his peers and those who served under him. Collins notes the difficulty in getting some primary accounts about Rodes, the task made even harder because Rodes' wife destroyed their personal letters. Nonetheless, the author went out of his way to provide a large number of personal accounts from those around Rodes - in particular there seem to be a lot from men such as Major Eugene Blackford - who served directly under Rodes, thus having very close first-hand knowledge of the subject.
   
   I should note that the book seems to be well-footnoted, a quick look through the bibliographical contents show some fine research accompanies this work. There is an index, but I haven't really looked at it. I'm not a scholar, so I really am not qualified to judge the quality of the research, but from my readings it looks fine.
   
   The first three chapters describe Rodes childhood through his becoming a brigadier general at the start of the war. This takes about 100 pages to accomplish, and Collins fills it with enough information to not only teach you about Rodes background, but gives you a good feel for the type of man he was at the start of the war. Rodes' trials and tribulations as a railroad engineer after leaving VMI are well documented - but those tough days helped harden Rodes' into a the general he became. The road to the start of the Civil War helped Rodes learn that above all else he had to be reliant upon himself, he wasn't about to be "given" anything, it all had to be earned. The third chapter also details Rodes' entry in what became the Army of Northern Virginia and the opening battle of First Bull Run.
   
   The next 300 or so pages are broken down into 8 chapters, each based primarily around the campaigns he was in with the ANV. Collin's does a very good job here of providing enough general information so as to place Rodes' decisions and actions in proper context, while at the same time remaining focused upon Rodes as a general. In these chapters (whenever appropriate) he also discusses non-military matters that Rodes attended to - including his devotion to his wife Hortense, his fathering of two children, along with the more mundane management of his estate. We also get a very decent look at "Rodes the man" as opposed to just "Rodes the general", there's enough human stories strewn throughout the work describing Rodes more genial nature as well.
   
   As to the military aspects and judgments concerning Rodes, Collins shows fine skill as well as his own good judgment. He doesn't hold punches where Rodes perhaps doesn't perform up to what would have been expected of him. His handling of his troops at Gettysburg for example comes under close scrutiny. Collins questions some of Rodes decisions and non-decisions, while at the same time offering up the potential mitigating issues surrounding Rodes' health. But even there Collins does note that /if/ Rodes was so impaired physically, he should have turned over command. Collins' even-handed evaluation of Rodes seems very fair throughout the book - his praise for Rodes at Seven Pines, South Mountain, the Bloody Lane, or the counterattacks at the Mule Shoe are offset with questions about actions at Gettysburg and other battles where Rodes was less than perfect.
   
   On the personal side Collins also tries to show the love and devotion to Hortense, and then his children. But as the latter were born so late in his short life - his son was less than a year old and Hortense was pregnant with their second child when Rodes died - its a bit harder to understand Rodes' history on that side of the ledger. And as noted earlier, Hortense's destruction of their private correspondence removes a whole slew of potentially important clues on Rodes' personal life. Nonetheless, one does get enough information showing Rodes concern for his wife's welfare, and coupling that with the abundant evidence showing his loyalty and concern for those around him, one certainly does grow to respect and "like" Rodes as one reads the book.
   
   Besides the great job done by the author at achieving his goal, I should also mention the fine quality of book production. The book itself is quite well made, the font is eminently readable, and the book jacket is very nice as well - a fine portrait of Rodes gracing the cover.
   
   As is usual, the number and perhaps the quality of the maps /may/ be one slight negative area. History readers always clamor for more and better detailed maps, but this is really a very small quibble: This is not a military treatise per se, it is a biography after all. To offset this, there are a number of fine photographs of key people mentioned in the text, and a couple of nice pictures of Rodes as well. I don't recall seeing one of Hortense offhand, interestingly enough.
   
   And as I noted in the introduction, as one reads a well-written biography, you do grow to "know" the subject - so when they do die it can be a bit saddening. Especially with one so young, so chivalrous, and so gallant - I'll end quoting the key paragraph:
   
   
   Quote (pg. 402)
   "As [Rodes] was trying to control his mount, Rodes' head snapped violently forward. A bullet or shell fragment (the record is unclear) had struck him in his skull behind the ear. The general hesitated for a brief moment, then tumbled hard to the ground."



3. During the Civil War, it was only two promotions from command of a regiment to command of a division. Assuming you were not killed or crippled, two promotions in four years of war seems an easy project. Without a West Point education, a powerful patron and backing of a major state the second promotion was almost impossible to secure. This was even truer in the Army of Northern Virginia, the South's most professional army. A West Pointer and a Virginian fill almost every major command. The list of Brigadier Generals who assumed temporary division command but never get a division is long and distinguished. An example of these men is Evander Law. Their always seemed to be a reason that kept him from getting that second promotion. These few men lacked the necessary qualifications had to rise on merit alone. Simply put, they had to be much much better than the men in the approved group. This was no easy task. Some of the approved group was very good and all of them were connected by their West Point education and army service. Where would George Pickett have been without his association with James Longstreet?
   Robert E. Rodes was a Virginian. However, he came into Confederate service from Alabama. This put him in a position of being almost but not quite a member of both state's group and lost political support, from both, for his advancement. Robert E. Rodes was a graduate of Virginia Military Institute. In 1861, VMI was not the respected fabled school that it is now. This was a school for those not good enough for West Point who wanted a military education. He was promoted after First Manassas to Brigadier General. In January 1863, he received temporary command of Hill's division and was promoted to Major General after leading the attack at Chancellorsville. He led that division until mortally wounded in September 1864. He was considered one of the best division commanders in Lee's army, respected by all and recognized as an excellent combat officer.
   This is a military biography, Rodes was in his mid 30s when he died. Without the American Civil War, Robert E. Rodes and Thomas J. Jackson would be footnotes in a VMI history dealing with the early staff. Rodes would be one of the first graduates to assume a chair and Jackson would be known as "old Tom fool", reputed to be the worst instructor VMI ever had.
   1860 found Rodes, newly married, employed as a chief engineer for an Alabama railroad. The book covers his non-military life in about 60 pages. This gives us a good foundation of understanding and some sympathy for the man. The next 350 pages is an account of the war through his eyes. This gives us a look at life from regiment to division, not in terms of grand battles but personal issues, traumas, disappointments, triumphs and endless effort. Death, illness, exhaustion, bad food, no pay, rain, mud are all woven together into an intensely personal and readable book. The author has a very readable style and is able to describe things in a way that allows us to see and understand them. I am not a great reader of biographies. This is as much a military history on the regiment, brigade and division level as a biography. Rodes is presented fairly, the author recognizes his flaws and failures as much as his strengths and triumphs.
   The book contains nineteen excellent maps at the right location. There are pictures and illustrations throughout. One nice feature, the last picture is of Robert Emmett Rodes IV holding his Great Grandfathers sword. This is a Savas Beatie civil war book. We expect a physically attractive book, excellent maps, artwork that enhances the story. Within a well-written, informative, well-bound book. They have maintained these production values in this volume and it is a worthy member of an exclusive club.

5 comments about The Destructive War: William Tecumseh Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and the Americans.

1. This book won the Bancroft Prize. I can see why. The prose is inspirational, every paragraph a little jewel. The book is absorbing. It was easy for me to get lost in the prose, too easy. But where was this book going, generally? How did the chapters tie together? How does the concept of the destructive war fit into the intellectual patterns of pre- and anti-bellum history? I can't answer these questions and I would hope that no one would ask me this last question on a Ph.D. prelim. I can draw only one conclusion: there was no connection. This was the first modern war in terms of its destructive power. One out of every five who participated, died on the field or, even more horribly, of his wounds, lilke Stone Wall Jackson. The intellectual origins of American politics became uprooted and found no voice in this war. The Jacksonian themes that built on that tradition were mangled by the war. All that was left was the vicarious war: people of all classes struggling to relate to the war in every day language in any way they could. And once the killing stopped and reconstruction began, the destructive war and the vicarious war ended. No one learned anything. Is that the main message of this book? I wish Royster had written it down in black and white.



2. While focusing on the deeper causes of the civil war and their play-out on battlefields, Royster rips the lid off one of the most cherished American dogmas: the assumed sacrosanct value of the press. Royster's deep and thorough quotation from newspapers north and south, for decades preceding the war, lays bare a legacy of mutual hate encouraged by newspapers as they whipped their respective constituents up to a frenzy. The horror of "total war" and its major military proponents, in that context, is not only quite explicable but even ordinary -- even tame. The generals are, indeed, seen as essentially loyal ministers to a vast malaise primarily spiritual and psychic, which was hardly original to them, and which has been allowed to fester in this nation for a long time, and which to a degree poisoned populations both north and south before the war.
   
   This is therefore one of the few major books on American history either to take up an original thesis, or to forward one so counter to accepted thinking. You can like it or dislike it, curse it or scream "ouch," but the evidence is there, meticulously laid out. The fact is, Royster throws great and uneasy light on our present culture wars which are also now several decades running -- and flamed in a quite similar manner.
   
   In the meantime, Royster's descriptions of the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain and the burning of Columbia are matchless.
   
   This book leaves all James McPhersons, all Ken Burnses, all Stephen Ambroses, and all similar gurus at the post -- mere babes. No, this is not to say he is some sort of Michael Moore hate America nut, either. He's more on the level of a Tacitus, frankly, or an Isaiah weeping at the gates. Read it and weep.



3. This is a brilliantly labyrinthine disquisition on the American Civil War. Royster's premise is the examination of the wars' scale of destruction, and the surprising extent of its violence, developed out of biographical sketches of Sherman and Jackson, who Royster believes best personify the Union and the Confederacy. Further, Royster sees the devastation of the Civil War as incipient in the antebellum period. The Destructive War is interpretive as well as critical, literary as well as historical, dealing as much with the idea of war as the facts themselves. Indeed, the author terms his work " a long essay."

   Royster depicts the Civil War as-primarily-aggresive, anomalous, vicarious, and as the title suggests, destructive. The Confederacy sought aggressive war to achieve quick legitimacy, its viability depending on the ability not only to wage war, but also to take that war north of the Potomac, make the Yankees feel its effects, and thereby convince them that the costs of prolonged combat would be far too dear. Royster argues that the Union pursued aggresive war, ultimately, to bring progress to the South and demonstrate the superiority of free labor over slave labor, by razing the Confederacy to its foundations and then rebuilding it in the North's own image.

   For Royster no one better epitomizes the Confederacy than Thomas Jonathon Jackson, better known by his sobriquet Stonewall, which Royster asserts, reflected a self-created persona. Jackson's Stonewall was an inelegant fusion of plodding resolve, frustrated (if not checked) ambition, and intense piety, smacking of both Calvinism and Arminianism, all funneled into a zealous devotion to duty. His untimely death at Chancellorsville gave birth to the Stonewall myth-patriotic Christian warrior-providing tantalizing 'what if' grist for the counterfactual mill of post hoc Confederate nation building. An advocate of "the tactical offensive in battle" Jackson is certain the Civil War will be "earnest,massed, and lethal."

   The essence of the Union, according to Royster, can be found in William Tecumseh Sherman. Alarmed by Confederate strength and resolve, Sherman presciently observed that tactical defensive warfare would be woefully insufficient in what he believed would be a long and costly war. Egged on by newspapers ravenous for victory on the cheap, and deferring to troops already engaged in wanton mayhem, Sherman embraced, then embodied, that which he originally resisted: total war.

   Royster includes subsidiary characterizations of the war as drastic, Republican, and vigorous. Drastic war knows no limits in the pursuit of emancipation and abolition. Republican war means "Emergency war powers" and "passionate nationalism" which will create "a new republic, purged of antebellum evils and backwardness." Vigorous war is possible because of the "widespread eagerness to be exonerated of the criminality attached to bloodshed." Auxiliary adjectives such as harsh, bitter, ineluctable and causeless are employed to complete the illustration. In the book's chapter on vicarious war the author asks, "How had the naive notions prevalent at the start given way so readily to killing on a scale supposedly unimaginable?" This single question is the essence of Royster's work.




4. The book The Destructive War by Charles Royster, examines the war policies and strategies of the Union and the Confederacy during the civil war. The book talks extensively about Confederate general Jackson and Union General Sherman.

   At the beginning of the war the Union did not attack citizens or their property. The Union did not destroy any property of the citizens of the Confederacy because they anticipated winning the war. They realized that if they won the war it would be their responsibility to help the south rebuild. They also thought of the south and the people of the south as Americans despite labeling them traitors. But despite the reluctance on the part of Union Generals to damage citizen's property it eventually became policy. This change in policy came about because, "northern expressions of support for intensified war-making assumed that the Confederate army was an instrument of the Southern populace and that the populace was a legitimate object of attack," (Royster, 81). Women were also subject to attack. Union soldiers attacked women because "in the conventions of the time, women were supposed to use their power to ennoble and civilize-whereas, Southern women, it seemed, were serving what Elizabeth Cady Stanton called "mere pride of race and class." By promoting war against the union and by showing their hatred of Federal soldiers, they imitated Lady Macbeth and "unsexed themselves to prove their scorn of `the Yankees'." Thus they forfeited their exemption as ladies and noncombatants," (Royster, 87). Confederates did not share this policy. They always were proud that when Lee invaded Pennsylvania in 1863 that he gave an order that soldiers were not to damage citizen's property or plunder it.
   
   The book also talks about General William Tecumseh Sherman. Sherman was a southerner who chose to stay in the Union. "He shared (southern) distaste for abolitionist and for Northern politicians who made hostility to slaveholders a political platform. Still, he told Louisianans that secession was treason and that he would not collaborate with it by remaining in the state," (Royster, 90). He hoped to stay out of the war but eventually he joined the Union army. He participated in the battle of Bull Run and blamed the "defeat on the inexperience and panic of the privates," (Royster, 92). He was the senior commander of central and western Kentucky in 1861, despite his desire not to be in charge. He was dismissed of command of the area and rumors spread that he was insane. He eventually led campaigns down the Mississippi River and captured Atlanta. He became famous for his destructive marches through the south.
   
   General Thomas Jonathan Jackson or Stonewall Jackson was a very famous and effective Confederate General. Everyone even Northerners considered Jackson a "genuine general," (Royster, 42). Jackson on many occasions outmatched many Union Generals on the battlefield. He died on the battlefield on May 2, 1863 from friendly fire. Many Confederate Generals including Lee thought that if Jackson had not died that they would have won the war. After the war Jackson came to symbolize many things after the war. He epitomized the courageous and skilled Confederate soldier. He also represented a model "to all the men especially ambitious and aspiring youths, that the self-control and assiduous application he had become a self-made man," (Royster, 162).
   
   The civil war was "an interior struggle in the (Confederacy and Union), an effort to make the newly forming conceptions of nationality inclusive lasting while they were still controversial and nebulous," (Royster, 145). Both sides believed that the best way to validate their idea of the nation is to destroy the other side's army. The Confederacy thought the best way to establish itself as an independent nation would be to deliver to the north a decisive defeat on their soil. General Stonewall Jackson gave the south many victories against the Union and came to be one of the most famous Generals in the war. The Union thought one of the best ways to bring the Confederacy to its knees would be to attack Confederate citizens. General Sherman was famous for his invasion into the south, wrecking havoc on the Confederate citizens.

   I had to read this book for my Civil War class. I thought that the book was a valuable source of civil war information. However Royster repeated himself several times in the book. The book also jumped alot from subject to subject. The chapters did not flow into each other; they tended to skip from idea to idea. Despite this it was full of very detailed information.




5. Royster's "The Destructive War" is one of the most important works of Civil War Scholarship in the 1990's. He blends a sweeping narrative with extensive analysis to explain the development of "total war" and its effects on Americans. What will really engage the reader is not so much Royster's examinations of General William Sherman's actions and those of his men, but rather the ideas of Stonewall Jackson and the calls for the destruction of Northern cities that they elicit from the Confederacy, a nation that was supposedly only wanted to fight a defensive war. While Royster's argument is not without some structural flaws, it makes some very interesting points about Confederate war aims and the willingness of populations and troops of both sides to destroy the cities of their former bretheren. I've read this book twice for graduate level classes and each time a lively discussion has been generated. An excellent book.

5 comments about Jefferson Davis, American.

1. Like many of the reviewers, I think this is very good. I came to this biography because I wanted to understand The Civil War better from the perspective of the South. This book covers that well in that it does provide a good overview of how Davis viewed equality as being about equality and balance between the states in the union and not equality between people. For Davis, the Constitution was primarily about the interactions between states.
   
   On the reviews that say that the book glosses over Davis's owning of slaves, I saw these sections differently. It appears that Cooper did not have any evidence that Davis had abused his slaves in the cruel sense. So, he can't write that. However, just the simple description of how many slaves Davis owned, how old they were (adult, old, and children), and how Davis's slave "assets" grew from the birth of children was disgusting to me. There did not need to be cruelty for the idea that a child born into slavery could not decide on their own future. While it is hard for me to fathom how Davis could speak of liberty while owning slaves, Cooper did a good job of framing how Davis probably thought about slavery. In the end, the overview made me more thankful to have not lived in those times, just as living in even more ancient times would have been even worse.
   
   The other sections that I found interesting were the descriptions of Davis' participation in the Mexican War. Having recently read a biography of James Polk and now this, I think I will have to look for a good history of the Mexican War.
   
   Lastly, I agree with the reviewer that the book needed an epilogue that spoke to Varina Davis's last years. Throughout the book, she is a large part of the story and to stop the book with Jefferson's death just didn't work.



2. It is rare that a biographer can capture both the essence of his/her subject and the historical context of that particular subject's time. Cooper not only does so, he does so brilliantly, like no other biographer of Davis has done to date. Cooper focuses less on Davis's role as leader of a doomed Confederate Nation and more on his accomplishments as a Mississippi politician. That is not to say that Cooper ignores Davis's role in the Confederate war effort and national politics. He writes extenisvely on the friction between Davis and two of his leading Generals, explaining how Davis went from being a luke-warm secessionist to the most ardent Confederate Nationalist in the South. Cooper also focuses on Davis's role in the Mexican War and his youth at West Point, his managing of slaves, his friction with his wife, and his constant battles with weak health. Cooper also focuses rather extensively on Davis's time after the war and his travels abroad. In this excellent biography, Cooper captures Davis the man, not Davis the symbol of a lost cause, setteling ultimately on Davis as a patriot and American.



3. Alone among historical events from which the participants are all dead, our Civil War continues to ignite passions. Many treat the issues as current, and see the personages as a still-living presence. Trust me; I live in a suburb of Richmond, and see it all the time. Up front, let me say that I respect President Davis; I visit his house and grave, and contribute to the maintenance of both.
   
   Was Davis the right man for the job? He was probably the best man available. Bob Toombs? He would have been perfect if he could have been depended on to be sober. Breckinridge? Sure, but he was Vice President of the United States when the Confederacy was formed, and he also knew which end the bottle poured out of. Louis Wigfall? Brilliant, loyal, but an alcoholic hot-head. Alex Stephens? Please. A brilliant man; a good and decent man, but not a true leader.
   
   This is an absolutely outstanding biography of a very difficult man to study. Sure, it's a long book, but Davis' life was long, and complicated. Reading it, one doesn't notice the length; Cooper is such a superb writer that this is a "page turner". Davis gets full cradle to grave coverage. The tough issues are in no wise avoided. His early education, West Point training, and U.S. Army career are all well documented. The stories of Davis' all too brief marriage to Sarah Knox Taylor, and the subsequent seven years of isolation are particularly poignant. Marriage to Varina gave him a second start, and he made the most of it. To my mind, Varina Davis is the absolute definition of "First Lady".
   
   Jeff Davis was a man of his time and place. Before anyone would criticize him, it is well to reflect on the danger of applying the standards of our day to a man from another; Thomas Jefferson, Ty Cobb, even FDR, all came from a different age; so did Jeff. In his day, the right [NOT wisdom] of secession was assumed; the White man's right to own, and obligation to care for, the Black were instilled from birth. On the record, Davis was probably as humane a slave owner as existed anywhere. Only once did he ever break up a family, and that was after much begging by the slave. Davis DID NOT want secession; he followed reluctantly.
   
   The tragedy of Jefferson Davis is that he was called to lead a country founded on State's Rights, which was then done-in by State's Rights. Vain, obstinate, and difficult, he was loyal and devoted. His mistakes are not glossed over. His loyalty to a fool like Lucius Northrop, and his tragic inability to get the most out of Joe Johnston and Beauregard are both part and parcel of the man. One of Jeff's flaws was the inability to work with people he didn't like, which FDR, for example, did quite well. One of his very worst errors was in thinking that Braxton Bragg was a field commander; placed behind a desk in Richmond, Bragg could have done for Davis what Marshall did for Roosevelt. By the time Bragg got his desk, it was too late. Davis could also be unwaveringly supportive of great men, like Robert E. Lee, and Judah Benjamin. Was his overall strategic vision the correct one? Who knows? A case can certainly be made either way. Jeff tried his best; I doubt anyone could have done better. Though some may call him obstinate, his strength and refusal to quit kept the country going long after others would have given up.
   
   If I have to criticize something about a great book, it's this: Jeff had a lot of health problems [which may well have affected his job performance], and they are documented as if writing for physicians. No problem here, but...while Plasmodium falciparum and herpetic keratoiritis may be perfectly understandable to me, others may need explanation. You may know a lot about the Civil War, but your knowledge is incomplete unless you know something about the political leaders behind the Generals. Reading this book will be time well spent.



4. I thought this was a good book. William Davis' "Davis" was better in that it gave a more honest personal portrayal. However, and editors do listen up, most of us in the real world don't have time to read an immense book. Keep succinct; keep around 300-350 pages. Thank you.



5. With so many reviews already, it is hard to add much so I'll keep this short and sweet. This is a great book and the seminal biography of Davis. Historians will be hard pressed to top Cooper's work. The book on the years preceding the Civil War were, at times, not overly inspiring, but the chapters on the war years and Davis' post-war life more than made up for it. Page turning reading and solid research to boot. This book is the best kind of history--readable, entertaining, yet solidly researched and educational as well. Having read other books that discussed Davis in varying capacities, I feel like I have a much better grasp on Davis the man than ever before. Highly recommended for any and all history buffs.

5 comments about One Soldier's War.

1. Lots of stories about Russians soldiers stealing, scrounging for food and brutalizing each other while at the same time accepting that their fate is to die at anytime at the hands of the Chechen rebels. Little about the overall story in Chechnya (1st or 2nd war). But it's quite clear throughout that the Russian soldiers are absolutely terrified of "the Chechens." Although I might be sympethic, this book makes the regular Russian army look pretty bad...
   
   This book could have been very good had a different approach been taken to its purpose and construction.



2. I have been going back and forth to Russia on a regular basis for the last 13 years. I have had the fortune to make the aquaintance of many ex and active Russian soldiers in my wanderings of the regions there. I find this book to be one of extreme exaggeration and an over dramatic amature attempt to shock the reader into a kind of unthinking, stupified, state of horror. While some things are accurate in the big picture such as the conscription of new recruits, the "on the job" training style, atrocities commited by both sides, for the most part this book is making a "grain of sand into a beach". That is a quote of my friend who fought in both Chechen wars. If you want a good but inaccurate, unprofessional biography of someones experience there, this is the book for you. If you want a more, this is not the one. Worst 20 bucks I ever spent, and I'll mark it down to propaganda.



3. It is just a coincidence that I finished reading this sad and terrifying book while at the same day news tell us:
   
   "MOSCOW -- Missiles, tanks and other heavy weaponry rolled through Moscow's Red Square in the annual Victory Day parade Friday. President Dmitry Medvedev said "the true purpose of weapons and military equipment is to give reliable defence of the homeland....We must treat very seriously any attempt to sow racial or religious enmity, foment the ideology of terror and extremism or meddle with other states, particularly any attempt to revise boundaries"
   About three million Second World War veterans are still alive, their pensions are small and many live in poor conditions... Mr. Medvedev's first decree after taking office was to order that all Second World War veterans receive housing by 2010."
   
   So here we have it, full hypocrisy and how it is to be the soldier. "All Quiet on the Western Front" comes to my mind, because "One Soldier's War" is as much terribly shocking, candid, and will testify forever about nonsense of wars, espceially wars against insurgencies and ethnic nations seeking independence.
   Just consider this excerpt, young soldiers' line of thinking:
   "...It would be realy cool if they led Yeltsin and Dundayev out onto the landing strip and let them get struck into each other. Te one who cripples the other wins. We stand around and cheer them on: we cheer our guy and the Chechens cheer theirs. And no war, no corpses. That would be much simpler and more just than this arrangement, where the wrong people do the fighting."
   
   This statement is a pure gold essence, like the whole book, showing how armies serve to fulfill agendas of leaders, politicians and presidents.
   "One Soldier's War" is a must read, it took my breath away from me.. Deeply personal, and well translated, it shows total and terrible demoralization of Russian soldiers during the wars in Chechnya. Although you will not read a lot about merciless fighting and horror of it (this is quite obvious and vivid background of the book), the bulk of the text presents what was happening to the conscripts within their units, death stalking them almost with the same intensity as on the battlefields. Ramifications of such wars are immense and summarized with passion Babchenko. Total disarray of Russian army reflects for sure the state of Russia after USSR collapse in 1991, no doubt. But is it better now? I am not sure.



4. This is a grisly account of the two Chechen wars (1990s and to this day) Mostly this is an account of how the Red Army fights, but there is ample insight into the religious nature of the conflict. The stories of the brutality among fellow members of the Army is astonishing, even among the oficers. The treatment of Russian prisoners, young soldiers utterly unprepared to fight a war, by the Muslim Chechen warriors, is equally astonishing. This was complete savagery. The Red Army has not learned from WW II; they're still just throwing people at the adversary and they're not so amply supplied with bodies anymore. The book is a series of independent vignettes and not in time order, nor clustered together by subject. It is a reporter's notebook.



5. Wow ----- never thought I would be caught up in a book until 1:30 a.m. This is an account that I will never forget. It allows a non-military person a rare look into the workings of what must be one of the most brutal military organizations in the world. The hardships are probably overcome by fear, love of mother Russia, and personal comradeship. Certainly there should be no loyalty to such a corrupt organization. A remarkable account. This book should be read by anyone with an interest in military issues or contemporary Russia. The style of writing is objective, not editorial. Young Arklady Babchenko simply tells it as it happened. Many thanks to Nick Allen for bringing this to the English-speaking world.

5 comments about Nimitz.

1. This is a wonderfully done work! The best account of the war in the Pacific I have read. The overblown accounts of MacArthur and Halsey over shadowed the real brains, the true hero of the victory. It depicts Nimitz as a strong, but caring man whose tactical and strategic skills are not widely known. It should be required reading for high school/college literature courses.



2. E.B. Potter's Nimitz is an adequate depiction of the Navy's preeminent leader of WWII. Adequate, vice great, as Potter did not seem willing to criticize, although Nimitz was evidently a man who did provide few episodes worthy of criticism. He was loved by the troops, respected by his peers and immediate subordinates, and worked well with superiors (King, Knox, and Roosevelt) that demanded excellence in all of their subordinates. The reader may wonder why there are so few narratives dedicated to Nimitz during WWII, as compared to the plethora available depicting the wartime exploits of MacArthur, Marshall, Eisenhower, and Patton. It would appear that his quiet competence, as compared to the showmanship of some of the others, did not lend itself to a flashy best-seller, thus Potter is the only one who has attempted to tell his story.
   
   Potter did a good job, but his personal friendship with Nimitz appears to have rendered him incapable of criticizing the man. While Nimitz did apparently have few faults, Potter did a disservice to the reader by failing to scrutinize some of Nimitz's faults, such as his apparent indecisive streak when it came to strategic decision-making (for instance deciding the correct avenue of approach to Japan, whether the Philippines, Taiwan, or the Bonins, especially in discussions with Roosevelt and MacArthur).
   
   Also, as a practitioner, I felt that the lack of discussion of the specifics of operational planning and decision-making under Nimitz's command, missed an opportunity for comparison with the methods that the military uses, successfully or not, in today's formulation of strategy and operational construction.
   
   Finally, I would have liked to have read a little bit more of the leadership philosophy that made Nimitz successful during his years at sea. The chapter on his command aboard AUGUSTA went a long ways toward scratching this itch, but what the Navy leader of today needs is a discussion, through framework or anecdote, of what made a successful career.
   
   Despite my criticism, I have to say that Nimitz's life is one worth studying, and as discussed above, there are few choices of books dedicated to Nimitz's life, so I do recommend Potter's work. I would just like to see another biography written through a cynical twenty-first century eye, so that we can reap the benefit of a critical discussion of his mistakes, as well as his triumphs.



3. Potter's biography of Chester Nimitz, CinCPac, is a good war biography. It can usefully be read in conjunction with Potter's volume on William Halsey, "Bull Halsey," and Thomas Buell's biography of the less flamboyant Raymond Spruance, "The Quiet Warrior."
   
   The book is functionally--but surely not elegantly--written. It traces the life of Chester Nimitz from his childhood to Annapolis to his rise in the ranks of the Navy to World War II and beyond. Much detail is provided, including information on his family life.
   
   The maps of the various campaigns in the Pacific are extremely helpful to the reader. The book traces the kind of decisions that Nimitz had to make--from replacing Admiral Kimmell after the surprise attack on Pearly Harbor to assigning Raymond Spruance to carrier command at Midway to relieving Admiral Ghormley at Guadalcanal with Admiral Halsey, to working with the mercurial General Douglas MacArthur, to the climactic battles at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
   
   This is the kind of functional biography that provides great detail on combat strategy and tactics as well as on the person being studied.
   
   A good volume if one wants to understand the role and importance of Chester Nimitz in World War II. Not an elegantly written book, but a good functional work.



4. I bought this book at the Navy Exchange on a whim. Two pages into this book and I was hooked. After 20 years in the Navy after reading this book, I can see Nimitz's impact everywhere I look.
   Most biographies are written by hero worshiping sychophants, or worse written by the subject of the biography whose recollection of events are always flattering. Potter tackles the single most important man in U.S. Naval history with appriciation, but not at the expense of his detachment.
   You begin with the Admiral's family history, how his grand father came to America. You then follow his lack luster school performance that explodes into focused determination to pass the Naval Academy's entrance exams. Because the Admiral's claim to fame was his leadership during WW II, the lion's share of the book covers his assumption of command U.S. Forces Pacific and follows it through his presence at the signing of the Japanese surrender at Tokyo bay. However; the last few chapters covering his dedicated work to maintain the U.S. Navy as a seperate and powerful force is eye opening and gives the reader (especialy if your a sailor) a scare at how close the U.S. Navy came to being dismantled like it had been after every war.
   The thing I took away from the book was as you look around the Navy, many officers are detail minded. The higher the rank, the more of a bean counter they become. I used to be disappointed that we no longer had officers like Perry or John Paul Jones, that they had all become accountant politicians. However; reading this book, I now see that men like Jones, Perry, and Halsey might win battles. It was the detail minded officers like Nimitz that win wars. It is very obvious that in today's Navy officers are trained in the shadow of Nimitz. Many of our ceremonies are now patterned after the way that Nimitz conducted ceremonies. The way we refuel, the submarine, the way we detail sailors, so much of the Navy was forged by Nimitz.
   This book covers not only his triumphs but his defeats, his short commings. It deals honestly with the subject, with out elevating him to super human. You see a man. This book should be mandatory reading for every sailor on earth. I highly recommend this book!



5. Some WWII commanders. such as Patton, Ike or MacArthur, seem to have a new book written about them every year or so. For no particular reason, others, no less important, seem to be virtually ignored. Nimitz is one of these men, and it is fortunate that the one biography (as far as I can tell) written about him is quite excellent. Potter writes very well, did some outstanding research, and has an enormous love for his subject, letting Nimitz's natural charm, humor, professionalism, and common sense come through on every page. My only real complaint is that the author's near worship of his subject precludes any real discussion of the admiral's strategy, decisions, and mistakes. Some nice maps, footnotes, an excellent bibliography. Definitely one of those books worth purchasing and reading over and over.

5 comments about I Could Never Be So Lucky Again.

1. I was suprised by how good this book was. What makes it good are the many interesting stories detailing a life in aviation in both the civilian and military spheres. What makes it great is that Doolittle's personality comes through on every page, and he's a guy you like spending time with. Not only a war hero and innovator in aviation, this memoir shows Doolittle to have been a thoughtful and philosophical man with a keen intellect, sensitive to the world and people around him. This perspective allows him to not only report on what he's seen and done, but to intelligently comment on it. His depth of character makes this book well worth reading, and it is certainly one of the most memorable autobiographies I have read, inside our outside the war genre.



2. This is a non fiction account of one of americas greatest aviators.....one of the ten best books I have ever read!



3. "I Could Never Be So Lucky Again" is the personal memoir of James Harold (Jimmy) Doolittle as told to Carroll Glines. Jimmy Doolittle was simply the foremost aviator of his generation.
   
   No one else even comes close.
   
   He was born in Alameda, CA in 1896, the son of a carpenter. He spent much of his childhood in Nome, AK. His parents split up and he and his mother moved to Los Angeles. As a child he was taught boxing to properly channel his pugnacious disposition. He attended Manual Arts High School and was initially a mediocre student.
   
   In another book, Frank Capra describes Manual Arts as the school that got the students Los Angeles High School didn't want. Interestingly enough both the famous movie director Frank Capra and Jimmy Doolittle were classmates as well as gymnastics team members. This high school was pivotal in Doolittle's life. It was where he met Josephine Daniels. Josephine was at the top of their class. Doolittle modified his behavior becoming a better student and goal oriented in order to be worthy of Josephine.
   
   Jimmy became an Army aviator. He immediately displayed considerable talent along with a wild streak which aggravated his commanding officer. Fortunately Mrs. Doolittle proved to be a moderating influence on her husband. Along with his flying excellence, LT. Doolittle earned one of the first doctorates in Aeronautical Sciences from MIT. He led a team that standardized aircraft control panels. Doolittle was the first to make an all instrument flight, taking off and landing his plane (within feet of the take-off point) while the cockpit windows were covered.
   
   He set numerous aviation records and won every major air race. Despite this, he remained a 1st LT in the Air Force. Peacetime promotions were slow. Even with his air race winnings, he needed more money to support his family. He accepted an executive position with Royal Dutch Shell.
   
   Doolittle returned to active duty as Lieutenant Colonel. In this capacity he planned, executed and led a bombing attack on Tokyo. This was the only time land based bombers were launched from aircraft carriers. Most of the planes did drop their bombs over Tokyo. It was also the first successful attack on the Japanese home islands in recorded history. However none of the planes survived the mission and Doolittle was ordered back to Washington.
   
   Instead of a court martial, he was promoted to Brigadier General and awarded the Medal of Honor.
   
   This may seem like the reviewer has told the whole book but don't worry there's a lot more for the reader to enjoy. The book is well written, never drags and sets a comfortable pace. It is full of interesting stories and facts. Mr. Glines has a proven track record as aviation historian and his expertise shows.
   
   Any money spent on this book would be well spent.



4. This book is for the fans of "The Greatest Generation"-type books. Both Patton and Macarthur got cinematic limelight, but we hear less about Admiral Nimitz, and even less about Doolittle. This book completes the Temple of the World War II Titans.
   
   As I read, two things impressed me. First was Doolittle's down-to-earth and conversational style. I felt like he was sitting next to me, chatting on the on the golf course, and just reminiscing between tees. The second was the drastic changes in flight that occurred during his fourscore and ten years. He saw aviation from the Wrights brothers to the Space Shuttle. All in one lifetime!
   
   I was also surprised how involved he was in developing aviation technology--he had a hand in the modern cockpit instrumentation. Things such as the artificial horizon, radar, and the dashboard layout came, in part, from him.
   
   Other surprising things were behind-the-scene info Billy Mitchell, supply problem in WWII, and also the three friendly fire incident he was involved with. It puts a perspective on the current conflagration.
   
   In order to round out the book, you need two supplementals. The first is to see "Patton." Doolittle provided the air cover for Old Blood and Guts, and the book contains many references and quotes from Patton. Yes, he was accurately portrayed in the movie, except for his voice. Doolittle mention he had a high, almost feminine quality to his voice, which explains his potty tongue.
   
   The second is to read "Catch-22." Yes, Heller is writing about serving under Doolittle. As I read, I wondered if Dreedle=Doolittle.
   
   This book is even-tampered in its approach to war. It is not as idealized as John Wayne, but did not swerve into the demoralizing MASH or Platoon.



5. I really enjoyed this book. Doolittle was your classic underachiever in school and had what some could call a troubled youth. This book paints the picture of a guy who overcomes those shortcomings to excell in life. Along the way he provides a few hints on how to be more effective in your own life. A great view into one of Americas true heros.

5 comments about Fortunate Son: The Healing of a Vietnam Vet.

1. An over-simplistic view to me is the only view anyone lacking the sensitivity to absorb this book correctly can have. Judging this person is irrelevant to the whole point of reading the book, it's not a textbook, of course there is more to the story, and of course anyone can be offended by anything. But, if your looking for a story of a young man who cheated death more then once during the Nam conflict, you will be hard press to find a better book.



2. The name of General "Chesty" Puller brings a proud smile to the lips of every Marine. He is part of the pantheon of "the few and the proud." His son, Lewis Puller, Jr., has written a memoir that tells the story of growing up in the shadow of a legendary father, becoming a Marine officer in his own right, losing his legs in an explosion while serving in Vietnam, and struggling to build a life for himself in the aftermath. This thoughtful and thought-provoking book was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.
   
   Lewis Puller, Jr. demonstrates a great deal of transparency in recounting his pilgrimage from the son of a war hero to a wounded warrior looking for his rightful place in the world. The New York Times called this book: "A haunting tribute to the names on the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial . . . An important contribution to the personal literature of war."
   
   The fact that much of Puller's personal journey took place during the same time the nation was struggling with building the Vietnam Veterans' Memorial adds a special poignancy to this memoir. Several of my friends who have served recently in Iraq and Afghanistan commended this book to me as one that had helped them in their own process of reconciling their experiences in war with their return to the United States.
   
   This is a story of great loss and of commensurate courage and determination. I think you will find it inspiring and well worth reading.



3. The book, a true account of a dissalussioned idealist - a trouble soul. A
   lead in to my sad tale of woe. My fellow Americans/Vietnam veterans, do
   not be fooled by the administration's rehtoric; read McNamara's "The Fog
   of War" and please don't forget the book "A Bright Shining Lie"! If you
   truly believe the lies of the "CHICKEN HAWKS", then I've got a bridge in
   Utopia I'll sell you. You are listening to people who never served a day in their misrable lives in war and when most of them had their chance to fight for our country, during the Vietnam war,they chose to "Cut and Run"
   (Guard duty and college deferments). There is only one way to end this
   fisco in the middle east; reinstate the DRAFT with NO LOOP-HOLES! Every-
   body goes when the 6x6 (military truck) rolls up (ages from 18 to 50),
   city/state/federal legislators, the whole nine yards. I'm speaking truth
   to power here today, people. Because when death becomes a shared sacri-
   fice, people's whole prospective changes; it's different when everybody's butt is on the line. Believe me, I know because I served three tours in
   "Nam (all voluntary) not in surrounding countryside (Thailand, Philippines, etc), but in country. I too believed in the government's
   lies (Gulf of Tonkin incident) at the time, but after a lot of years since then, I've had time to reflect and my reflections are not pleasant.
   So, if the country really wants to stop this current mistake, follow my
   advice, THE DRAFT!



4. It is difficult to not be moved by the horrific series of incidents related by Puller here. As pointed out by other reviewers, the self-portrait he renders is of a person so unappealing that the reader must conclude that what he has written with an eye first to honest description, as well as he can render it.
   That said, this book is not really worth reading as a book. The writing is stultifying flat and, for whatever reasons, the only thing Puller does here is whine, in an equally grating voice and with an equal intensity about whatever happens: the mortifying loss of his legs and much of both hands is treated with exactly the same weight as minor slights that occur in his run for office. Furthermore, a very great deal of the book is devoted to pointing out the obvious: for example, Puller insists on notifying the reader that his son learns to talk while his father (owing to a stroke) is losing the capability for speech. Should an editor have cut out this and the many similar needless explanations, the writing would have far greater impact than it does.
   Should the story of Fuller have any lessons for us, those lessons will surely be better learned by reading a (much, much shorter) article about him rather than this tedious book.



5. The recent scandal exposed by the WASHINGTON POST's coverage of conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center reminded me of the power of this book. One legacy of America's unfortunate invasion of Iraq will be untold numbers of young Americans--and Iraqi civilians--who will live the same sort of horrific nightmare that Lewis Puller describes so vividly in this harrowing autobiography.
   
   My retired Marine father once served under Lew Puller's legendary father, and the two of us stood in line to get our copies of "Fortunate Son" autographed by Mr. Puller, an experience I still remember vividly all these years later. Puller's prose is equally memorable, and this book should be required reading at any American high school in 2007--and for any American who plans to vote in the next election. Lewis Puller's words are more important than ever.

No comments about Operation Homecoming: Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Home Front, in the Words of U.S. Troops and Their Families, Updated Edition (Research Division Report / National Endowment for the Arts).