5 comments about My Year in Iraq: The Struggle to Build a Future of Hope.

1. Hey L. Paul, you cost your country like 2 trillion dollars and a loasd of blood, can we have our Freedom Medal back?



2. Bremer's year in Iraq was the turning point in the Iraq war...a war that was not considered in is consequences by Bush or his cronyies, bomb first, think later if at all! It was a year when both security and economic issues were in desperate need of the best minds possible...instead we got Bremer. It is not that the endless problems that came up were entirely Bremer's fault, except in part..the war architects had not even minimally anticipated what would happen, thus they destroyed central leadership [....], then through bombing destroy resource basis, then through disbanding security forces (Bremer) unleashed competitive violence and underlyng ethnic conflict.amazing thatthey did not see it coming...incompetent and America and the Iraqis pay and pay and pay.........



3. I took great care to read this book slowly. See my list on Iraq Evaluations.
   
   Bremer is clearly a decent man, hard-working, totally clueless about Middle Eastern and military affairs, and put in a no-win situation by George Bush and Dick Cheney. Bremer bugged out after a year, and now, two years later, the Administration we have a quagmire and a possible attack on Iran building up.
   
   Quite incredulously, for me at least, Bremer actually sees Iraq as the crux of the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and yet is totally oblivious to the fact that we created this battlefield opportunity for Iran and Al-Qaeda. See At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA
   
   Early on the book makes it clear that Iraqis were delighted to be liberated, dismayed at the occupation, and completely unable to agree among themselves about how to achieve a legitimate government capable of stabilizing and reconstructing the country.
   
   This is a very self-serving book, extraordinarily selective in its recollections. A few things that really struck me:
   
   1) This book starts without reference to the path to war paved by lies from the Vice President and other members of the Bush "team." It begins by saying that it was "widely accepted" that Weapons of Mass Destruction were the proper cause of the invasion. BALONEY. See instead Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq and Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy
   
   2) There is ZERO discussion in this book of the massive role played by Halliburton, Bechtel, and others. There is ZERO discussion of the 18 billion dollars he had to work with and managed to lose, completely apart from the contracting. There is ample discussion about the pretense of progress, but ZERO discussion about the thousands of contracting failures, the abysmal failure of the entire reconstruction effort. See Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, Squandered Victory: The American Occupation And the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq and a host of other books on our failures there, such as Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq
   
   3) There is a lot of blame to direct elsewhere, clearly justified but not at all making up for the fact that Bush-Cheney lied to America and the world and created this mess:
   
   a) Chalabi was a constant irritant, obstruction, and general twit. This is the man who was fired by CIA for being a thief and a liar, convicted in Jordan of bank fraud, and still allowed by the US to be very active in Iraq.
   
   b) Wolfowitz's rosy predictions are labeled as "fantasy," and the author on more than one occasion talks about Doug Feith in a manner that is the diplomatic equivalent of General Frank's blunt statement in his own book: "the dumbest bastard on the planet." See Tommy Franks "American Soldier."
   
   c) The Governing Council created early on was lazy, working quarter days four days a week. They simply did not compute the demand for hard serious work.
   
   d) He takes General Jay Garner to task for allowing looting (ultimately 17 of 20 Ministry headquarters buildings were completely looted, as well as electrical and water plants and petroleum pumping stations), and also calls General Garner's 15 May turn-over plan a reckless fantasy. I posit instead that the neo-cons were sucked in by Iranian agent Chalabi and never realized how deep they were into fantasy land. I think Garner was close to getting it right early on.
   
   e) He very properly points out that he inherited a deep structural crisis, a country coming off fifty years of neglected infrastructure, with virtually every sector of society dysfunctional. For context see The Fifty-Year Wound: How America's Cold War Victory Has Shaped Our World and The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project)
   
   f) The CIA and the Marines shut down his attempt to arrest Muqtada Al-Sadt, the Shi'ite cleric that has since then completely disrupted the country.
   
   g) On more than one occasion the Spanish Army elements refused to fight and refused to follow direction. The Ukrainians also come in for direct criticism from Bremer.
   
   There are a number of absolutely fascinating tid-bits, a few of which are listed here:
   
   1) The Iraqi military had 16,000 generals while the US military (all of it, worldwide) has only 300.
   
   2) The military consisted largely of Sunni officers who abused enlisted Shi'ite soldiers.
   
   3) Saddam Hussein had implemented virtual starvation genocide against the Shi'ites, with severe malnutrition being the norm within that majority.
   
   4) Because of the complete breakdown of all sanitation measures, he estimates that 500,000 tons of human waste each day were dumped into the two rivers.
   
   5) Hussein printed money with inflation up to 100,000 per year--at the same time, 50% of all Iraqis said by the author to be unemployed when he arrived. [On this later point, he does not address the fact that the contractors received billions and instead of employing Iraqis, imported many other nationalities as slave wages.]
   
   6) In his view, there were three sources of instability: looters, die-hard Bathists, and the Mukhabarat paramilitary.
   
   7) Saudi Arabia was known to be egging the Sunnis on and in my view; this makes the Iranian interest in Shi'ite self-preservation completely appropriate. The author also notes that Syria and Lebanon were training and sending in foreign fighters (in the low thousands). Saudi Arabian royalty is EVIL. See See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism and also Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude
   
   8) The author blames the French (and to a lesser degree the Russians) for keeping Saddam Hussein in power, while making no mention at all of the strong support provided by the USA to Saddam Hussein in his genocide against the Kurds and his genocidal chemical war with Iran.
   
   9) On an extremely important point, I found it beyond belief that the author, the "Viceroy" was put into Baghdad without a command & control communications and computing set of vans, tents, generators, and so on. The military incapacitated him with quiet scorn.
   
   The author claims in this book that the insurgency was "largely unpredicted" (page 223) and this is of course not true. However, I do believe him when he says he tried over and over again to get Washington and the military to take the insurgency seriously. His problems with Washington are very similar to those described by General Wesley Clark in Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat
   
   The author has 164 references to Bush and only 26 to Cheney. He really did deal with the President on many matters after the fact, but I credit Dick Cheney will totally trashing our entire global program. See Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
   
   The author has good things to say about the World Bank (this is prior to Wolfowitz taking it over). They completed 15 assessments in six weeks instead of six months, and were very helpful.
   
   There are only 12 mentions of Iran in this book. That is the epitaph for our failed invasion and occupation of Iraq. Iran wins, we lose.



4. I think that this is one of the important books of the Iraq war. Bremer is perhaps the most important figure of the most important part of it, namely, the attempted reconstruction of the country. This book describes his efforts toward that end, and attempts to justify his decisions.
   
   Unfortunately, the effort is a disaster. Bremer really didn't have much experience with this kind of work, and it appears clear from the beginning that right-wing ideology was the driving factor in his decision making -- and most of these decisions suffered for that. For instance, Bremer refused to re-open the state-run businesses, because he thought the private sector should run all business -- this immediately threw tens of thousands of people out of work. Similarly, the draconian de-Baathification forced almost all qualified managers from their jobs. Bremer also, and I think unforgivably, doesn't spend any time comparing this attempted rebuilding to the very successful post WW II efforts. In particular, the de-Baathification seems to have been based on the de-Nazification in Germany, without really looking too closely at what might be different between Iraq and Germany.
   
   Still, it's an interesting book, and a point of view that should be a part of any study of the war. The book could well have been 10 times as long, and it would be interesting to see what parts were edited out. I share others recommendations of "Imperial Life in the Emerald City" as a great companion book.



5. This is a very comprehensive account of Paul Bremer's time in Iraq, and for almost the first time gives a real insight into the political in fighting both in Iraq and in Washington as the US attempts to bring democracy to this nation. He has been unfairly treated in other books on Iraq and this tends to set the record straight. I very good read for those who are seriously interested in the Iraq situation.

1 comments about Faces of the Civil War: An Album of Union Soldiers and Their Stories.

1. Even casual readers about the U.S. Civil War have seen the haunting images of young soldiers staring stiffly into the
   camera for posterity. About to embark into a war of unimagined horror, few of their particular stories were preserved or documented. "Faces of the Civil War" takes those personal mementos and visiting cards as a hook to pull the reader into many previously untold stories. This winning combination of powerful images, extensive archival research, and accessible journalistic writing provides a welcome addition to anyone's Civil War book collection. It also can grab and hold student's interest in this endlessly fascinating era of U.S. history.

4 comments about Red Clay on My Boots: Encounters with Khe Sanh, 1968 to 2005.

1. Boy oh boy, this book will get you going. Before you know it you will have drawn your battle lines, and as surely as the Vietnam War divided this country in the 60's and 70's, readers of this book will divide themselves again. Generally, I hate and fear books like this, because I don't have the time or patience for soap boxes. I just want to read the story without the crapola, the present without the shiny wrapping paper. To be straight up, I don't like pushy people, REALLY, REALLY don't like them and Mr. Toppmiller will push every available button you have. I received this book on recommendation by author Mike Archer, a man I truly admire- which is a good thing too, because otherwise I would have done with this book what I have done with others- that I thought were similar- give it the boot. Now after having read it of course, I am glad I did not make that mistake.
   
   What I found when I read this book was a complexity that I could not have foreseen. I have read many with bigger words and more mumbo jumbo designed to make me think the author is an authority. But I do not think I have ever read one with as much in my face pure gut and heart thinly veiled in political opinion. The author gets in your face and pretty much stays there the entire time, but when you think of it, that is not unlike the history of the Vietnam War itself. I would also like to add that unlike many authors of books written about the Vietnam War, this man is not writing form information he gleaned from national archives, DOD documents, second hand information and opinion not based in fact. He lived it. He survived it and whether he believes it or not, he triumphed inspite of it.
   
   It would be easy to be caught up in his rants about the state of the world today and feel you need to be left or right, conservative or something else. Don't be misled, not only has this man earned his right to say the things he has, not only has he seen the greatest evils and greatest kindnesses that man can offer another, there is something more here. There is a lot more here, so please look. This book is the testimonial of the human spirit written by a Navy Corpsman who survived the battle for Khe Sanh, the only way he could. Guts. He calls it a lot of other things and I respect his opinion, but I will respectfully also
   disagree with his own self effacing descriptions. You cannot survive Hell and not have guts, fortitude, deep down survival instincts and a reason to live. You cannot
   come through such evil and devastation and waste unscathed. You come out angry, broken, beaten and regretful. You leave that pile of rubble knowing it is the
   most expensive and worthless piece of real estate on which you have ever tread. You come home sad, defensive, easily aggravated and distant to the world. You come home
   different. You want, need, ache for what cannot be articulated. You come home someone else. You are not understood, even by yourself and if you are destined to
   help others to heal and perhaps heal yourself you write a book. What I think the author fails to realize the depth of his healing of others as he continues, by his actions, to bandage the wounds of his comrades, which is the greatest triumph of all.



2. Robert J. Topmiller paints a brutally honest picture of the mayhem and carnage of war in "Red Clay on My Boots: Encounters with Khe Sanh 1968 to 2005". In January 1968, Corpsman "Doc" Topmiller arrived at the Khe Sanh Combat Base a few days prior to the North Vietnamese Army attack that initiated the infamous siege. "Doc" found himself living his solemn pledge to care for the injured, but never imagined the physical devastation he would encounter. Doc's description of the initial attack and subsequent days of the siege are honestly and vividly graphic.
   
   Doc provides a personally revealing look at the aftermath of war, on both sides of the skirmish line. Topmiller's anger clashes with his sincere compassion as he struggles to understand the decisions made by the leaders of both countries, the United States and North Vietnam, and the damage inflicted, then and now, upon the combatants of the past, the lives of the present, and what the future holds for the Vietnamese people under communist rule. Red Clay on My Boots is a provocative read that will evoke emotion and bring the reader into a closer relationship with the realities of war.



3. After looking forward to receiving my copy of the book, I was not disappointed. I read the first 100 pages at once. The descriptive details Doc gives and the feelings that he shares with the reader are overwhelming. I found myself clenching my teeth. It is hard to believe that so many 18-19 year olds were subject to this type of intense stress over such long periods of time. I felt alot of saddness and anger as I read through the first section thinking about the war and how many lives it ruined on both sides. And many of us are still asking why.
   Doc's experiences as a corpsman, brought back memories from the late 70's and early 80's for me. I worked at the local VA Hospital with Viet Nam vets especially those on the psychiatry ward who were suffering with PTSD. In my experience,none were more affected than the medics. They seemed to have their own particular brand of trauma: survivor guilt, their inability to save everyone who needed saving, and just the everyday life as a medic.
   The second section of the book provides more of a hopeful feeling. Doc
   seems to come grips with his demons, maybe not completely, but at least gives the reader a feeling that "coming to terms" is a possibility. His efforts at peace and reconciliation with the people who were his enemies reminded me of Nelson Mandela's generous olive branch to his enemy captors. His commitment to "the children" is a turning point for him and made me recall the Albert Schweitzer idea that: "only those of you who have learned how to serve will be truly happy." Doc finds a purpose with the children in the Catholic orphanage and in the School of the Beloved.
   All is all, this story of one man's journey to find his own brand of peace, is a worthy read. I hope that with each subsequent visit to Viet Nam, Doc can find more answers to his questions and above all the acceptance and inner calm he seems to be searching for.



4. Few people are more intimately acquainted with the horrors of war than Navy corpsmen serving with U.S. Marine units in combat. Upon that terrible and grisly stage, corpsmen carry out their duties, and become heroes to Marines, by risking their lives to help others; bandaging wounds, easing pain, comforting the dying and lamenting (sometimes forever) the loss of those they could not save.
   
   In 1968, at age 19, Bob Topmiller found himself in just such a situation, amidst of the longest and bloodiest battle of the Vietnam War -- at a place called Khe Sanh. Surrounded by as many as 30,000 of North Vietnam's best troops supported by artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft guns and rocket units, 6,000 Americans successfully held the majority of their positions despite fierce ground attacks and endless artillery bombardment. Young Bob Topmiller was among a handful of corpsmen that, at great peril to their own lives, forayed out each day under intense enemy fire to assist some of the nearly 3,000 Marines who would eventually be killed or wounded during the three-month long battle.
   
   In Red Clay on My Boots: Encounters with Khe Sanh 1968-2005, now Professor Bob Topmiller combines chilling personal recollections, with his expertise as a distinguished scholar of Vietnamese history, to create a unique and powerful account of the Vietnam War -- and the disturbing human toll it continues to exact. Topmiller's courage during that fierce and bloody battle would later serve him well in his tireless quest for reconciliation; eventually leading him from the brink of despair to rediscover a level of compassion he thought lost forever amid the carnage and ubiquitous red clay of Khe Sanh.
   
   Topmiller's search took him back to Vietnam a dozen times, visiting a multitude of cities, villages, and former battle sites. His knowledge of the language and culture permitted him access to facets of the society often missed by more causal travelers, but which provides the reader with astonishing glimpses of the war and its aftermath.
   
   Everywhere he traveled, Bob Topmiller witnessed the shocking legacy of Agent Orange on Vietnamese society; particularly evident in the appalling numbers of children deformed at birth by an environment still poisoned from the war. His search for inner peace ended in 2002 at a non-descript doorway on a street in Hue - a special school for these severely handicapped boys and girls. Since that day, Bob has been supporting them- back again, easing the pain of war.
   
   Terrifying, heartbreaking, enlightening and, above all, honest; Red Clay on My Boots is a story hard to forget.

5 comments about Ordeal by the Sea : The Tragedy of the U.S.S Indianapolis.

1. Ordeal by Sea does not feature great writing -- the character portrayals are weak, the suspense is almost non-existent, the narrative rambles. What this book does have in its favor is that it was written twenty years after the sinking of the Indianapolis, while the event was still relatively sharp in the public's mind, and in the survivors' minds as well.

   As I've mentioned, the dramatic aspects of this book are weak. These guys were in the Pacific five days with sharks pulling them under the water, and Helms makes it seem almost like a swim meet. Helm was not a great writer, but he does tell this horrifying story reasonably well: the Indianapolis delivers materials for one of the bombs to fall on Japan in the summer of 1945, the ship is sunk by a rogue Japanese sub, the survivors float for five days in shark-infested waters, some injured in the sinking, their bones pushing through flesh, the unfair court-martialing of McVay, the ship's captain. This is one of the best stories of surviving the worst conditions out there.

   One caveat: The publisher does not present this as a classic, as an older book brought out again. You find that out in the new introduction. I thought that this was a brand new book when I purchased it. That dings the book's rating.

   Truly a remarkable story, however.




2. Helm does a good job discribing the sinking of this heavy cruiser
   and the five days the survivors spent in the water facing the
   hazards of sharks, sun, no food or water, and the negative effects on the crew. With the new forward and summary by the
   skipper of the sub Indianapolis, their research and wording was
   quick and to the point. The skipper of the cruiser may have
   warranted a court martial, but was it fair--probably not. The court martial was more a bow to public pressure and focused on how the Navy was itself to blame for the sinking since no escort
   was sent to protect the ship, and nobody noticed the ship missing
   at Leyte. Better to throw someone to the dogs, than let the Navy assume blame for the 800 odd deaths at sea.



3. I've read several books about the sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, and I would rate Ordeal By Sea as only average. Mr. Helm does a good job of explaining the sinking itself, and the story of the survivors in the water is well-done, but some aspects are either complelely left out, or they are barely mentioned. These events, such as McVay's request and subsequent denial of a destroyer escort, failure to alert McVay about the recent sinking of an American destroyer along his proposed route, the ignoring by the navy of an intercepted message from the I-58 stating that she had sunk an American battleship, and the huge mess up regarding the departure and arrival of the Indianapolis are barely touched upon. Also, Mr. Helm devotes only a few pages of text to McVay's court martial procedure. While the book does a good job of telling about the sinking, abandoning, and struggle of the survivors, I was disappointed about the omission of the vital events leading up to the sinking. However, the author of the afterword, William J. Toti, does a good job of bringing the reader up to speed on the recent efforts by the survivors to get McVay's name cleared. I would recommend "In Harm's Way" by Doug Stanton over this book.



4. if you wanna read a book about the Indiapolis I would recomend this book. It is really good and tell you everything you could need to know. It's awesome! However, if you want to know the back ground about the I-58 or Hashimoto then I would also recomend, Abandon Ship! by Richard F. Newcomb. Enjoy!

   Note: just as a sugestion I think that when you underline the important parts of the book you get more out of it.




5. QUICK REVIEW
   A compact yet good account of the sinking of a navy ship and the incredible struggle for survival of the remaining crew, left floating in the Pacific ocean for days.

   FULL REVIEW
   This is one of many books written about the tragic sinking of the U.S.S. Indianapolis. It is a good version. It is well told and fairly well written. There are parts, however, where you feel the author could have told you more of the story, and other parts where he maybe should have said less. It flows well, though, and fully tells the story while also keeping the reader's attention. This ordeal gives us a great story set in WWII of what it's like to be on a ship that gets hit by multiple torpedoes and then the struggle to get off before it goes down. It shows the many facets of what men will experience and become if left simply floating out in the ocean without food or water for an extended period of time. It is an amazing story that leaves the reader with a true sense of what these men went through, and is well worth reading.

5 comments about The Spy Went Dancing.

1. This is one of three books written by Aline Griffith Romanos about her adventures as a undercover spy during WW II in Spain. It is excellent! I first read the book 25 years ago, have read them all more than once, recommended all three books to many, and have heard only high praise for the series. They are fun, well written, and real page turners!



2. I have purchased 4 books by Aline Romanos. I absolutely love them. The fact that there is truth behind the story and that she really was an upper-class lady as well as a spy excites me. I find myself wishing I lived an adventurous life. She has a talent when it comes to recreating her life and exploits. I could not put it down!



3. I can only echo the words of the previous reviewers! Countess Aline's books (...Wore Red, ...Went Dancing - so far!) are compelling, and I was truly absorbed from beginning to end! When I finished the first, I couldn't wait to start the second - and now I'm impatient to get the third - "...Wore Silk" - from my sister! I had to keep reminding myself that she would NOT be killed, as she was alive to write these books! And her ability to manage the pertepual romantic current with no "smut" is impressive! Her description of "masculine hands," the brush of lips on her ear, or the mention of leg-to-leg contact during the tango says it all! But beyond that, she teaches so much about Spanish customs and culture, from the attraction of bull fighting to how on earth they manage the high combs and mantillas, to daily routine, meal times, siesta - she never stops. How can this remarkable strong female hero be of the same generation as my mother?



4. Fascinating. My daughter is reading "The Spy Who Wore Red" and finds it fascinating as well.



5. My mom first gave me this book to read back when I was in high school. I recently picked it up again at the library to take with me on vacation - and was once again drawn into this amazing - and real life - mystery. In fact, I enjoyed the book so much I almost didn't want to leave my hotel room until I finished it (which didn't make my brothers too happy)! Aline weaves mystery and international intrigue with a jet-setting lifestyle as she hob-nobs with the likes of Liz Taylor and Audrey Hepburn while trying to solve a mystery that's haunted her for 20 years! I'm just starting her next book, "The Spy Wore Silk" and reccommend that anyone who loves a good mystery (and don't we all?) should check out Aline's books. They're absolutely addictive, and, in this case, that's a good thing.

5 comments about My Carrier War: The Life and Times of a Naval Aviator in WWII (Hellgate Memories Series).

1. This book was an excellent read. Mr. Berg is very candid about what it was like to be a naval aviator and having a family at the same time. I loved reading it. Thank you for writing it Mr. Berg.



2. I just finished reading My Carrier War by Norman E.Berg. It is an absorbing and interesting page-turner. Mr. Berg's memories of his WW II experience offer a gripping picture of what it took to be a naval pilot in 1941 and beyond, as well as the human story of a young husband and father who faced combat as leader and participant.

   This account offers an in-depth variety of information and illumination, regardless of the interest of any particular reader. It's about learning to fly, about learning to be a naval pilot, about the characteristics of warplanes, about flying from an aircraft carrier, about life at sea, about falling in love, about making a personal life in the midst of war, about separation from your loved ones, about dropping torpedos and divebombing, about comradship, about U.S. strategy in winning the south pacific, and about humanity in a time of war.

   Beyond the details, this writer knits the story together in an engaging way. There is no tedium in this book, nor is it a superficial recitation of dry history. It offers a timeless lesson in facing personal challenges and prevailing. The book is interestingly illustrated with photographs and maps. It is a satisfying read.




3. This chronicle is a rich tapestry of war time action woven against a background of a boy's transformation into manhood through duty, love, and acceptance of personal limitations. Norman Berg brings his combat missions alive with gripping vividness of detail. But it is the comparatively economical passges on his subjective experiences that give this book its poignancy. Staying the course in war and sixty years of reflection have added the tincture of a profound sense of fate to this writer's ink. It makes this memoir shine.



4. I couldn't put it down. As someone who was born after WWII, I was able to appreciate better the time period where we all went through this difficult period. May we never have to do that again. Thank you Mr. Berg for a well written book and am looking forward to seeing it in movie form.



5. Capt. Berg tells the true story of patriotisms conflict with his new family life and how he conquered his fears to serve two long flying tours in the Pacific war during the early and darkest hours of the war that affected and changed not only America but the entire world. Berg is one of the "Greatest Generation" and we are lucky to hear his story in his own words spoken from the cockpit of his torpedo bomber . I couldn't put it down and read it in one sitting. A Great Story. Eugene A. Olsen, Capt. USMM (ret)

1 comments about Stonewall Jackson And The American Civil War (Da Capo Paperback).

1. I have been a fan of the American Civil War for over five years, and I have read many books on the subject and especially on Stonewall Jackson. I have never found a book more thorough about both subjects in my life. The author dives into several contravercies like: Why did the Civil War started, Did Stonewall fall asleep at the Seven day Battle? He also doesn't just stick to Stonewall, he also talks about other important figures in the Civil War. So if you are interested, kinda like, or a fanatic about Civil War and Stonewall Jackson like I am, I would recammend this book to every one!

1 comments about Meade: Victor of Gettysburg (Military Profiles).

1. "Meade: Victor of Gettysburg," by Richard A. Sauers, is a short (121 plus xv pages) biography of the man described on the book's dust jacket as "one of the Civil War's most underrated leaders." The book features three maps, a chronology of Meade's life, black-and-white photographs, endnotes citing Sauers' sources, and a short bibliographic essay that covers biographies of Meade and original source material about him. The book covers the whole span of Meade's life, including his early military career, work as a civil engineer, reentry into the Army, Mexican War service, work on lighthouses as a military engineer, and family life.
   
   The book focuses on Meade's role in the Civil War. Sauers covers his command technique, his planning and preparation for the pivotal battle at Gettysburg, his relationship with Ulysses S. Grant, and his relationships with the officers who served under his command. Particularly interesting are the accounts of controversy and conflict among Meade and the other Union generals, as well as of the stormy relations between Meade and the press. We also get a look at Meade's hot temper. Also significant are the many personal trials Meade endured during the Civil War--injury, illness, and a critical family crisis.
   
   Although at times the text is a bit dry, Sauers includes some elements that give nice human touches to the story, such as a brief account of Meade's reunion with Robert E. Lee after Lee's historic surrender. Sauers also discusses Meade's problematic relationship with history, and takes issue with other historians for their reliance on original sources that were hostile to Meade. Ultimately Sauers' own portrait of George Gordon Meade is that of a remarkable soldier and leader. This is a thought-provoking work of military biography.

5 comments about Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Empire, 1767-1821. Vol. 1.

1. I almost picked a shorter book about Jackson rather than try to tackle this three volume set, but judging by the first volume there is no question I made the right choice!
   
   This is one of the best biographies I've ever read; not only is the subject compelling, but it is superbly written and the balance of information (like the selection of anecdotes and quotes) is perfect. It even includes a timeline and family trees (why don't more authors do this?). Also, Remini isn't afraid to offer analysis as he goes; it makes the book more interesting and I think it ultimately makes it more objective because you understand his biases.
   
   My only quibble, and this is very minor, is the author (or publisher's) decision to blank out the swear words. Jackson swore to great effect, and this quasi-censorship diminishes that effect a little.



2. In the first of three volumes, Remini carries Jackson from birth to the tragic loss of much of his family in the Revolution, through his early years in politics, his duels, and the Battle of New Orleans, up to his term as first American Governor of the territory of Florida, acquired by his own military victories.
   
   Remini admires Jackson, and argues persuasively for his huge historic importance - not just President Jackson, but the younger Jackson of this book, responsible for acquiring a large chunk of what ultimately became the Southeast USA in several Indian wars and treaty negotiations, the campaigns of the War of 1812, and his subsequent attacks on the Spanish colony of Florida. Many historians have condemned Jackson for siezing Florida without the explicit approval of the Monroe administration; Remini is convincing in his argument that Monroe must have known and encouraged Jackson's actions, although he was careful not to say so directly, since Spain and the US were not at war.
   
   Remini doesn't by any means try to whitewash Jackson. The man shown in these pages is impressive but often distinctly unpleasant. Remini quite directly calls him a 'bully', and the story of his feuds and duels shows a man who is ruthless and foolishly ill-tempered. The ugliest part of the Jackson story is his treatment of the native tribes; Remini offers some half-hearted apologias for Jackson's ruthless treatment even of those natives who fought with him in his campaigns, but tells the facts frankly enough that most readers will come to a harsher conclusion.
   
   Remini shows that Jackson's famous victory in the Battle of New Orleans was a closer thing than is generally supposed. Jackson carelessly left a crucial avenue open to the British, and a more determined general would have marched on the city and probably taken it before Jackson had his defenses properly prepared. As it was, the British foolishly gave Jackson sufficient time to settle in and fortify his line, only then attacking it with disastrous results. Although this battle is often viewed as an afterthought (the Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, was actually signed a few days before the battle was fought), Remini also shows that a British victory would have had real, and catastrophic, consequences for the US.
   
   Along with the colorful and often complex story of Jackson's life and activities, Remini fills in the story with good explanations of the conditions of the period. In particular, he gives a good explanation of the values and traits of westerners, and East-West conflicts, at an early time in the country's history when the Pacific was barely dreamed of and the 'Far West' meant the Mississippi.
   
   Remini's writing is excellent, and the biography is detailed and exhaustively researched without being pedantic or boring.



3. Andrew Jackson is one of the more complicated figures in American history. On the one hand, his significance to the development of the United States as a nation is large. On the other hand, he was often a very unpleasant person.

   This first volume in Robert Remini's biography follows Jackson's life from his childhood through his governorship of Florida. Along the way, we learn of Jackson's brief roles in both houses of Congress and his period as a judge; it is later, however, when he joined the military (becoming a general through politics rather than merit), that Jackson rose to nationwide prominence, especially his overwhelming humiliation of the British in the Battle of New Orleans and his later dealings with Indians and the Spanish which led eventually to the U.S. acquiring Florida.

   His military victories made him one of the most popular people in American history, but Remini pulls no punches with Jackson's flaws, including his often brutal and bullying nature and his tendency to violence. The ambiguous circumstances involving how he married his wife Rachel would lead to nasty talk during his presidential campaigns and his killing of a man in a duel (was it murder?) wouldn't help either.

   Having been previously exposed to Remini's writing through his brilliant biographies of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster, I knew this book would be a pleasure to read, and it was. Remini has written the definitive biography of Jackson, very detailed but always objective and always entertaining. If you want to learn of this era and of one its pivotal figures, this is the book to read (plus the other two in the series).




4. One might argue that the hallmark of great men is that they fundamentally and permanently alter the world they inherited - its beliefs, its practices, its conception of itself. Andrew Jackson is one of those extremely rare individuals.

   In this first of three volumes, which he subtitles "The Course of American Empire," Remini highlights the central role that Jackson played in opening up the early American frontier in the first decades of the 19th century. Long before the expression "Manifest Destiny" ignited the expansionist and nationalist passions of Americans in the 1840s, Andrew Jackson fought single-handedly - and occasionally circumvented direct military orders, the Constitution, local judges, and officially recognized international treaties - to advance American territorial expansion along the southern border and promote the removal of the Spanish, British and myriad tribes of native Americans.

   Other salient events that Remini chronicles in this volume include Jackson's humble roots and tragic childhood during the American Revolution in the Carolinas; his move westward to the Tennessee territory to start life anew as a lawyer; the "facts" behind Jackson's much-disputed relationship with his wife, Rachel; his entry into local politics and emergence as a militia leader; his military exploits against the Creeks, the British at the Battle of New Orleans and the Seminoles; and, of course, the many duels, fist-fights and other outlandish events of his early life that he somehow managed to survive.

   Much of Volume I reads like a "wild west" novel, but Remini is careful to accentuate how Jackson's natural rough hewn character, along with his experience on the frontier, melded to shape a political philosophy that ultimately altered the course of American government. There is little direct reference to the principles that would become known as Jacksonian Democracy in this volume - an undying faith in the virtue and wisdom of the people, the inviolability of the Union, the pernicious effects of deficit spending and "soft" currency, etc. - but it is easy to understand how and why Jackson cherished those ideals after reading the story of his early life.

   Finally, it must be noted that Remini assiduously avoids holding Jackson's conduct in relation to slavery and the Indians to modern standards. In all fairness, that is understandable and not especially offensive. However, Remini does neither himself nor Jackson any service by going out of his way to stress how relatively humane (in Remini's mind) the president was to his human chattel and explaining that he really had the Indians best interests at heart when he forced them from their land to the barren plains of modern day Oklahoma. In this volume and the others, Remini offers some strongly worded criticism of Jackson's political, military and social performance, but his many heinous crimes against humanity are treated with kid gloves throughout.




5. This meticulously researched and wonderfully written book is the first volume in a three-part biography of Jackson that will undoubtedly set the standard for years to come.
   Part of what makes Remini's work so useful is that he does not rely solely on American sources but has also dug deep into the Archivo General de Indies in Seville, Spain in order to try to see Jackson from the viewpoint of the Spanish colonial government. It was this research that led Remini to his main thesis in this book which is that Jackson, thru his military exploits against the Indians of the southern United States (notably the Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole and Chickasaw tribes) and against the Spanish in Florida did as much or more than any other individual to extend U.S. territory into much of Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, and all of Florida. One of the more interesting revelations of the book for me was the mutual admiration and the shared goals at this point in their lives between Jackson and Monroe's Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams.
   In fact, Remini makes a good argument that Jackson's military exploits in that region were is what enabled Adams to deal so successfully with the Spanish in negotiating the Trans-Continental Treaty of 1819. This treaty formalized the recognition of the European powers of the territory added to the U.S. by Jefferson in the Louisiana Purchase. Up until then the purchase was widely recognized as illegal.
   So why don't I give this book a higher rating? I think that Remini falls prey to a common tendency of American historians who take on the task of writing the lives of our great men. As a reading public, we do not seem to want to acknowledge the dark side of our leaders or our history. As a result, it is difficult to write biographies that do not border on hagiography. Remini for the most part avoids this failing. He is clear about Jackson's violent (murderous, really) temper, his tendency to bully others until they gave in and his paternalism. This is not a man I would have wanted to know.
   Where Remini does not quite live up to his own standards is in regards to Jackson's (to my mind) overt racism. Jackson regarded the presence of the Indians anywhere in territory that was being settled by Americans as unacceptable unless the Indians were willing to give up their tribal territories, accept a farming plot and become good little American citizens. Remini tries to convince his readers that Jackson the paternalist hated only the tribes not the individual Indians and that therefore Jackson and his policies were not racist (see the discussion on p. 337). I leave it up to the reader of this review whether this defense is adequate. I think that the last fifty years has amply proved that a racist can befriend individual members of the hated group as long as that individual keeps their place. I think that this is actually a rather common type of racism and Jackson exemplifies to a plentitude. To be fair to both Remini and Jackson he had a life long history of defending the underdog if they applied to him for protection.
   Of course, this makes Jackson a paragon of the southern culture of the time but we also need to be honest about our own history. Jackson was a racist, he initiated Indian policies that were, at the least, marginally genocidal (the Indians called Jackson, Sharp Knife) and he was still one of our greatest men, one who had an enormous influence on our historical destiny. Remini, the good honest scholar that he is, gives us enough material and detail so that we get enough of the story so that we can sort out our own vision of the truth.

5 comments about Terrible Terry Allen: Combat General of World War II - The Life of an American Soldier.

1. Gerald Astor's "Terrible Terry Allen" is a good but uneven treatment of one of the most enigmatic American commanders of World War II. Because Terry Allen never rose higher than a division commander, in one way it is unusual that a biography was written about him; but after reading this book, you'll understand why this man (who commanded two separate divisions in the European Theater and was a true fighting general) deserves a biography.
   
   Astor tells the story of Terry Allen's life, from a brief introduction with his parents' background (his father was also an Army officer), briefly discusses his childhood, and then focuses on Terry Allen's military career - which included service during the Mexican incursion and truly heroic service as a battalion commander in World War I. Of course the majority of the book discusses Allen's World War II service. In World War II, Allen served as the commander of the First Infantry Division (from which he was relieved during the Sicily campaign, a move that has been discussed at length but never fully explained) and then the commander of the 104th Infantry Division during its train-up in the United States and its campaign in Europe.
   
   Astor sometimes tells this story by quoting from letters that Allen wrote him while at war. At other times he is notably silent on what Allen was thinking or feeling. Sometimes, the book is more of a chronicle of the units that Allen was leading than of his actions. This is of course is the result of writing about someone who was only a division commander: his papers were not preserved like others were; his aides and staff did not keep their own detailed memoirs; and he was not a prolific letter writer and diarist the way some commanders (such as Eisenhower and Patton) were.
   
   Also of note: this book had a good collection of maps (very important in any military history work) but the paperback binding was beginning to separate during just one reading.
   
   Despite these drawbacks - many outside of the author's control and a natural product of writing on someone without a large body of documentary evidence -- there isn't another good resource on the life of Terry Allen. For this reason, I recommend this book to anyone interested in World War II.



2. First, full disclosure. Had my father been home when I was born, I'd likely have been named Terry Allen Aubrey. But my father was fighting with the 104th (Timberwolves) at the time. The first platoon sergeant he'd had was wounded and home in time to name his son Terry Allen Hodges. There is a Viet Nam memorial in Ionia, Michigan, carrying, among others, the name of Terry Allen Towne.
   Astor does not tell us why men would name their sons after their division commander.
   The reality is that the Timberwolves knew what fighting was, and they knew the cost they paid, and they knew how much worse it was in the other divisions. Terry Allen saved their lives.
   Part of it was night fighting. Night fighting, particularly before the development of night vision devices, is not like daylight fighting but in the dark. When I was at Ft. Benning, the introduction to the extensive block of instruction on night fighting was a lengthy reading from the Timberwolves' after-action reports. During a break, I told the instructor that I didn't need to be sold. I'd learned it at my father's knee.
   The instructor told me that there's always somebody in each course who tells him that. The Timberpups' fathers can tell their sons.
   But Astor doesn't tell his readers. Generals can worry themselves sick about casualties, but Terry Allen did something nobody else did and got enormous results. The connection is, I think, inadequately made.
   At one point, Allen, dismissing his prospects for promotion to something above division level, says he was jumped past well over a hundred more senior officers to get the First Division and, implicitly, has that many enemies. Logically, that means he's at the end of his career.
   What Astor misses completely is what caused the highest levels of the Army to reach past well over a hundred senior officers, all of them well qualified, and pick Allen.
   In the small, interwar club of the old professional Army, everybody knew everybody. Talents, weaknesses, vices, and baggage were all common knowledge. Astor tells us that Allen was occasionally reprimanded for sloppy personal appearance. That is practically inexcusable. Turning out immaculately in the prescribed uniform is reflexive in any private, and doubly so in officers who've passed through the demanding, detail-oriented, infuriating inspections of various commissioning schools. Not looking "right" is almost unimaginable.
   Allen was known to have a drinking problem. In the Army, this is not as bad as having a hangover problem. A company commander I had once remarked that there used to be "twenty-seven day" sergeants, but then (1970) no officer could afford to indulge a three-day drunk following payday. Allen, for whatever spectacle he might have made of himself, apparently showed up for work.
   During the interwar period, Allen spent some time in the Southwest in the cavalry, and some time at the Infantry School at Ft. Benning.
   Like many of his colleagues, he was loth to see the end of horse cavalry, and even drew up a table of organization and equipment for modern cavalry. He specified light automatic weapons not then existing. I have no idea how this was received by those to whom he showed it. They may have seen it as an exercise in nostalgia (and perhaps shared a laugh or two), or they could have thought Allen was hopeless. Due to an imprudent investment, Allen was trailed by a debt problem which he did not completely pay off for many years. Taking care of this was a constant worry in an era where bouncing a check could get an officer dismissed from the service.
   Commanding a peacetime unit of any size offers the officer in question a great opportunity. He may--must--let his subordinates do the work. "Work them hard but let them work," is a piece of advice that goes back a very long way. He must keep track of results, keep track of details, but keep a distance from the day-to-day work. With the time freed from the grind, he must, if he is to progress, look at a bigger picture. How can he improve his unit? What other ideas can he put into useful form and "sell" to his commanders? What contingencies can he foresee and plan for?
   Allen had that opportunity and apparently made the most of it. For later on, Marshall and others reached past scores of more senior officers, officers who did not worry about debt, who did not drink to excess, who were impeccable in their dress, who were also well qualified, and picked Allen. But we have no idea how Allen showed himself superior in potential to so many colleagues, or how much better he had to be to overcome his faults.
   As an idea of the scale, the Timberwolves were the 104th Infantry division. There were a few more, possibly up to about 110. There were a dozen armored divisions, and with everything, possibly almost two hundred division-equivalent formations, not counting the Air Corps.
   So Allen jumped over a number of officers sufficient to command more than half the two-star commands available.
   WHY? WHY?
   HOW did he impress Marshall and company?
   We have no clue.
   I find that the biggest disappointment in the book.
   However, Astor gives us a glimpse of what it means to be a professional officer when he relates Allen's WW II burdens. It might be thought that commanding an Infantry division in combat is enough. But Allen still had his occasional ventures with booze and his debt. His wife, not surprisingly, was more and more concerned for him, like millions of others, and needed reassurance. His son needed encouraging letters. His sister, an Army nurse, was undergoing a slow nervous breakdown and Allen was trying by letters to manage as best he could her situation.
   That Allen could be a superb division commander during this time is testament to the hard, almost brutal, mental and emotional control a professional officer must have over himself.
   As another reviewer noted, general officers whose highest command was a division in World War II are rarely the subjects of biography. What set Allen apart is not shown.
   Yes, Allen was a good commander, according to Astor. Why men would name their sons after him is left to those men and their sons. Those not in that privileged group are not enlightened by Astor's book.
   Having said this, I must say that it is an excellent book about the career of a fine officer, a good look at part of our history, and a lesson that personalities matter, even in the structured climate of the military. Men, as one of Heinlein's characters remarks, are not potatoes. They are not interchangeable. And which one of them happens to be at a particular nexus of events makes a huge difference.
   In this, Astor is crystal clear.



3. I'm actually surprised Terry Allen was promoted to general. He didn't graduate from West Point, his discipline of his troops was lax in comparison to other generals, and he obviously wasn't in the club with Bradley, Ike, and Patton. While Patton did stand up for him in the invasion of Sicily, Ike wanting to can him, Patton insisted he remain in command of his Big Red One. Patton would do things like pee into Gen Allen's slit trench in front of Allen's men, effectively calling him a coward in not so many words. Two of Allen's men took their tommy guns off of safe into fire mode with an audible click at which point Patton left. I would recommend this book to any WW II buff.



4. "The Greatest Soldier of World War Two" - This is one of the many accolades said of Major General Terry de la Mesa Allen by other Generals who knew him. He has also been credited with being the best U.S. combat commander of WWII. There are quite a few similarities between General George S. Patton and Major General Terry de la Mesa Allen in that they both:
   · trained at West Point (Allen did not graduate, but finished his education at the Catholic University),
   · served in the U.S. Cavalry during World War I as officers,
   · became generals during World War II,
   · were aggressive in their campaigns and always attacked,
   · lost commands for "political" reasons,
   · and both were very controversial.

   There were also definite differences between the two:
   Whereas Patton loved the limelight, and never missed an opportunity to distinguish himself, Allen was very low key, shied from publicity, and who liked his liquor.
   Patton graduated from West Point, Allen flunked out twice.

   Known as aggressive fighters, Patton was not terribly concerned with casualties but Allen was continually looking to keep the casualty rate as low as possible.
   While Patton and Allen were both outspoken, Patton tried to play the "Army" game...Allen did not play the game, which irritated his superiors.
   
   Allen was loved and respected by the average "G.I." in both Army Divisions. He was considered the enlisted man's General. Terry Allen was the only American WWII general to train and lead into combat two Army Divisions:
   The 1st Division (a.k.a. the famous "Big Red One"), and the 104th Infantry Division ("The Timberwolves"). Under his command, the 1st Division helped conquer Sicily. Later, the 104th Division, led by Terry Allen was the first Army Division to make contact with the Russian Army (they met somewhere between the Mulde and Elbe Rivers).
   The 104th Division under Terry Allen, set a record of 195 days of consecutive combat contact against the German Army.

   While Gerald Astor has corrected a historical oversight by writing Terry Allen's biography, he definitely fell short of the excellent mark of a great book. I found the book to be slow moving during the first few chapters of "Terrible Terry Allen", and dwelled too much on minute details (such as the letters to his wife), while completely skipping over very important events in his life. While it is still a good book in that it describes a very controversial and brilliant military man, it comes up short describing "the total man". I would normally rate it at 3 stars, but give it a 4th only because it is the only book of its kind on Terry Allen.




5. It should not be surprising that a book written by someone who is trained neither as a soldier nor a historian, about a consummate warrior like Major General Terry Allen, disappoints. It is most unfortunate, however, as Allen was one of the real characters among the US Army leadership in World War II and his life must have been a fascinating one.
   This book reads like a first draft --one that cries out for a firm, knowledgeable editor who will cut the extraneous material and force the author to answer all the questions that could make this a great book. As only one example, before World War I Allen was sent as a new 2nd Lieutenant to the 14th Cavalry Regiment on the Mexican border. What was a cavalry regiment in 1914? How was it organized, trained,equipped and led? What was life in the 14th like? Where did the 14th Cavalry go and what did it do in the years Allen was with it? There is plenty of secondary material out there to answer these questions but scarcely a word in this book.
   Allen claimed he participated in the last mounted charge with sabers by the US cavalry. This is a STORY. What happened? When? Where? Why? How? The author makes a silly try at connecting Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa's attack on US troops in Columbus, New Mexico, with inflated body-counts in Vietnam but the writer passes up another STORY and one relevant to Allen's development as a combat leader. Was Allen at Columbus? What happened there? What did Allen do?
   Throughout we get page after tiresome page of Allen's letters to his wife, but little context. Why? What is the point? Before taking over the legendary 1st Infantry Division, The Big Red One, in the early days of World War II Allen commanded the all-black Second Cavalry Division which included 9th and 10th Cavalry Regiments -- the famous "Buffalo Soldiers." What effect did Allen have on the 2nd Cavalry Division? What effect did the division with its strong cadre of long-service, regular Army, African-American troopers and NCOs have on Allen? We are never told. Finally, for reasons that elude this reviewer, we get the full story of Allen's son's defeat by the Viet Cong as a battalion commander in the 1st Division in Vietnam. This in a book that gives us little of the important detail of when, where and how The Big Red One fought across North Africa and Sicily under General Allen. Why? Where is that editor?
   We are left with a pradox: a polo-playing, loud-mouthed, combative drunk, who did not study his profession in peacetime, and refused to instill and demand discipline in war. Yet this officer trained and led into battle two of the best US Army combat divisions in World War II? How could that be? Sadly, we get few insights from this book.