5 comments about Swamp Fox.

1. One of the real heroes of the Revolution - underscores the difficulties that Gen. Greene had in the Southern campaign and highlights much of the cruelty we forget about. Author gets carried away with geography, however, and loses the reader in minutiae.



2. This is a great book to sink your teeth into. It deals with major battles as well as the multiple skirmishes fought by the southern militia. I felt as if I was there in the swamps, and hovering over the battlefield fighting along with these men. In the end you are almost kinda sad that you are no longer a part of these men's lives. Bass does a great job of putting you right amidst the action. You feel as if you know these men personally. This book also made me want to know more about Nathaniel Greene. (next book!) Angie



3. Bass' book is stuffed to the gills with details about battles and personalities surrounding the campaigns of Francis Marion, but, as a newcomer to the subject, I found that to be more problematic than helpful. If one does not already possess a working knowledge of the subject, the amount of detail and Bass' constant jumping from event to event is somewhat overwhelming. I also found that the lack of a consistent narrative gave the book a text-book quality.



4. I would rate this a high four or a low five.

   This book was fascinating. It brought home to me how much was sacrificed during the fight for independence. Although about one person, there are many fascinating stories that are included in this book.

   The author is obviously a large fan of Francis Marion. On one page alone he is described as heroic, strong, honest, trustworthy, quick thinking, witty, and so on.

   I would have appreciated a larger map.

   However, overall this book is a good read.
   Enjoy.




5. Bass is a good storyteller; unfortunatley he is not as good of a researcher. Overall this book is an easily readable retelling of the life and Revolutionary War campaigns of Francis Marion. There's nothing new or particularly insightful here, and unfortunatley Bass gets several military details wrong (such as the numeric designations of British regiments) and provides a one dimensional portrait of Tarleton and other British leaders.

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 Last Man Out: Glenn McDole, USMC, Survivor of the Palawan Massacre in World War II.

1. This is by far the best book ever. Finished in in 3 or 4 nights, just kept thinking "then what, then what."
   
   Must read for any military or war buff.



2. This should be a must read book!!! Although written by someone else, the actual Veteran, Glenn McDole was there right by his side and threw in plenty of quotes and first hand accounts.
   
   Read the book and get a good example of what happened in some of these Japanese P.O.W. camps. I can assure you that your jaw will drop to the ground!!!



3. This book was very good even though it tells a terrible story. There is a lot of detail about massacre of 139 American prisoners of war and the survival of just 11 as they hid in garbage and swam 5 miles in the ocean to safety. This is a great source for a national history day project. This book would be 6 stars if that rating existed.



4. This book should be required reading for every high school student in America - most people have no idea what many ordinary young men endured as prisoners during World War II, how they behaved under the unbelievable burden of watching their friends die and how they overcame the horror of being POWs of the Japanese in the Philippines - this book is extremely well-written, simple and concise without self promotion concerning one of the worst atrocities in modern warfare - it's an easy although uncomfortable read - it'll make you proud to call McDole and other POWs fellow Americans



5. I could not put it down. I really liked the book. I meet Mr. McDole and his wife this last June. What an amazing family and how he over came tragidy.

5 comments about Baghdad Express: A Gulf War Memoir.

1. I have read plenty of books over here, there are times when there is little else to do. It is too hot to be outside, you have nowhere to go anyway on a FOB in the middle of a desert, you have no work assigned, and time is slow. The boredom is mind-numbing. There are also times, like the author describes, when you go for weeks and months on end sleeping maybe four hours a day. The sun just keeps spinning around the sky and the relentless days just keep coming at you. You get no break, there is no mercy.
   
   Turnipseed captures very accurately what it is like to be deployed to this region. Some things have changed, of course. If the author were here now, he might find things a little more exciting for a truck driver. But some things never change, the tent cities, the boredom, the exhaustion and stress. Even those of us who never leave the wire deal with the constant possibilities of incoming rounds, rockets, and mortars. There is a fear that haunts your sleep at the beginning and an unending tension which must eventually replace it.
   
   As for Turnipseed's philosophic and individualist bent, that is not at all as uncommon as some reviewers think in military members. We are not mindless faceless followers of orders. The military, ironically, attracts people with issues with authority. The results are often humorous, unless of course you are the one dealing with the consequences of your smart attitude. The military is far more educated than in past generations. Sure, plenty of kids still join straight out of high school. But plenty more start or even finish college, and have no way to realistically pay for it and so end up in the service, often in the support branches like Turnipseed. (Others join for patriotism, or bravado, or just plain curiosity.)
   
   Most of us are younger than thirty: young people throughout history have displayed an individualistic streak, and a belief that they are the first ones to think and feel what they are going through. Being young is a crime of which we are all guilty at one time or another, I forget where I first heard that quote. Turnipseed at least was a young man who did not shirk his duty, as so many in the last generation did.
   
   As for Turnipseed's isolation, it is largely self-imposed, and he doesn't deny that. Some of it, too, is a reflection of hard times from his youth. But he does outgrow it. He comes to realize that not all is black and white, that philosophy can inform life, but in the end it just has to be lived, in all its ups and downs. You will never fit in, being human entails some level of isolation. You can't attach more meaning to ideas than to people who would and sometimes do risk their lives for you.
   
   
   But all of this is just an aside. The author captures the military experience perfectly, that strange mix of cameraderie and pride at the ideals which inspire the great institution, with the apathy and disillusionment and sheer exhaustion which ensue when we go to carry out our orders. There are mix-ups and mess-ups (to put it in polite civilian), rumors and constant changes of plans. You question sometimes what order your leaderships' priorities are in - the mission, your safety, their careers and politics? But you will always feel a certain pride at having served, despite it all. The cause is worth it.
   
   The military, above all, teaches you the limits of what you can endure and how insignificant your feelings and self-esteem are to those limits, contrary to what everyone has told you to that point in your life. This is a difficult but necessary lesson to my generation. It's hard to explain the military or war to anyone who has not been there, but Turnipseed does so deftly with a concise and often hilarious style I have not encountered in other memoirs of modern war. For a view of the other side, non-veterans should read this book. For those who have served or are serving, you will smile and nod knowingly throughout, and may even find some of the quotes appropriate.



2. The first few chapters I had a hard time reading through as there was an excessive amount of profanity. By the middle of the book I was able to comprehend what he was saying. The last half of the book was interesting and showed his development from an outcast, to finally being accepted by people in the Dog Pound. I liked that there was an underlying message of his change/maturity, but that he also gave a nice portrayal of the war. With a friend that's currently a Marine in Iraq it was good to be able to have a taste of what he is going through.



3. This is actually a good read, and I could have gone either way 3 to 4 stars. Turnipseed makes this interesting reading, despite throwing in various quotes from philosophers. I am not sure his fellow grunts understood him, and maybe I don't either. His job as a reserve Marine was to drive trucks from the rear to near the front. Most of his time was not spent in hazardous duty, despite the SCUDS and NBC threats. What he had to do was routine duty, that most frontline soldiers would grab for. Despite his duties, he makes this interesting reading by relating his experiences during the first Gulf War.
   
   This is a fairly short read about the experiences of one soldier in war, and war for him was mostly in the rear. His philosohical notions sometimes gets in the way of the read. I especially enjoyed his chapter on the black planet.



4. This was one of the best military books I've read so far, and I've read a lot of them. While this book was profane it was an accurate description of the War in Iraq in the early 90's. Joel Turnipseed goes into pre-war happenings, going to war, life in the desert, and coming home in his memoir. He does't try to glorify the war, he just tells it how it was in a very descriptive way. I'd reccomend this book but not to people who aren't prepared for plenty of swears.



5. After I read Jarhead, I wanted to see what other books of the "reluctant Gulf War Marine" genre existed, and am glad, in retrospect, that I came upon Baghdad Express.
   
   Unlike Jarhead, Baghdad Express moves faster, and most of the illustrations are a hoot. The writing itself is great; Turnipseed manages to combine depth with Generation ADD prose, although the philosophical citations become tiresome. Also, there's a tad of adolescent petulance about his status as an outcast because he'd rather read his philosophy books than be together with the other Marines. This is all fine and dandy - that he's the camp pariah for reading - but it's not approached with the same realization and self-deprecation as Swofford's Jarhead, which leads one to believe that Turnipseed is more arrogant than is called for. At times, he comes off as purposely trying to be regarded as the Big Intellectual on Campus, as if to prove that he's, in fact, smarter than his fellow Marines.
   
   Otherwise, this is a funny, worthy, and often heart-breaking memoir.

5 comments about The Man Who Warned America: The Life and Death of John O'Neill, the FBI's Embattled Counterterror Warrior.

1. The book is not news to anyone who reads any New York newspapers. It is a cut and paste job from ON's drinking buddy. Better reporting done by author Peter Lance. Of course, nothing written by me detracts from the dedication and true grit of John O'Neil.



2. John O'Neill was a problem. A bull in the china shop. He was a womanizer and he was an exceptionally poor fit at the FBI, but if we had listened to him 3000 people, including him, would not have died at the World Trade Center, the pentagon and on three airline carriers. There seems to be less and less room in America for the mavericks. This book is no white wash. It paints the man in full warts and all. But at the end of it we realize that it was this wildman who was right and all the politicians, hypocrites, sanctamonious twits and stuffed shirt beaureaucrats who drove him from the FBI,or didn't pay attention to him were wrong. The execrable Barbara Bodine who single handedly ruined his mission to Yemen comes in for special criticism. She probably still doesn't think she did anything wrong. We are becoming a silly nation. We've become obsessed with beauratic rules, political correctness on the left, phony piety on the right, and we can't get anything done anymore. Don't read this book merely as a tragedy but look it as a wake up call



3. John O'Neill grew up in Atlantic City, NJ watching the FBI on TV on Sunday nights. All he ever wanted to do was be an FBI agent and serve his country. The son of working class folks who ran a taxi cab business he dedicated himself to be the finest and fulfilled his childhood dreams. Jonh went to my high-school and lived 5 minutes from where I grew up, I never knew him but after reading this fine Murray Weiss biography I feel I know him as a brother. This book will infuriate you as John O'Neill tries to warn everyone in the government of an impending doom with Bin Laden, who he studied and profiled, much to his chagrin no one listened. How ironic that after so much frustration with the FBI bureacracy and a Clinton Administration consumed by the presidents personal travails that John O'Neill resigns to take over security operations at the World Trade Center one week before 9/11. He perished in the collapse of the towers after he was safely out. He ran back in to try to save people. This book will move you, John O'Neill's story will stay with you. Did he have his own style and personal troubles, sure, but his life is what you will remember, his dedication to his job and the fact that maybe if a few more higher ups had listened to him this tragedy could have been averted. With men like this, you'll believe our country is in good hands as far as the war with terrorism is concerned. It's upper management we should be worried about.



4. John O'Neill was the most dedicated member of the FBI who committed his life to fighting crime and, ultimately, terrorism. His efforts were discouraged by bureaucracy, ignorance, and the Clinton administration. Read firsthand in this book how he was so close to saving much anguish, sorrow and death in the United States but was stopped in his tracks by others too inept to acknowledge the vision he had for stopping the unfortunate acts of terrorism in New York and Yemen. The cruelest irony is that he died in the collapse of the World Trade Center towers in charge of security after he retired from the FBI due to frustration.



5. This is an interesting book on an unusual subject. People like John O'Neill are not usually the subjects of biographies. He wasn't anywhere near prominent enough, and that usually means that someone like O'Neill winds up being a footnote in a book about someone else. Instead, O'Neill was the FBI agent in charge of International security in New York City, and spent much of the 90s as the guy in the FBI who was the most interested in and focused on capturing Osama bin Laden. Ironically, he retired in mid-2001, and took a job as head of security at the World Trade Center. He went back into the South Tower on 9/11 and was killed when it collapsed.
   
   O'Neill, according to the author, was a complex, driven man, a visionary who was one of the first US officials to decide that Osama bin Ladin was worth watching and perhaps capturing. While his FBI career was, in terms of his job performance, impeccable, he had two major weaknesses. First, he was occasionally forgetful, and violated various FBI rules and protocols. In the mid-90s, when Louis Freeh was running the FBI, any violations were punishable, and almost certainly would have a detrimental affect on a person's career. O'Neill was once caught letting a girlfriend onto an FBI secure facility, and giving her a ride in his car. On another occasion, he lost a briefcase full of classified material that shouldn't have been out of the office. Both of these incidents impacted his career and chances for promotion. Second, he had a penchant for chasing multiple women at the same time, concealing each liason from all of his other girlfriends. When he died, each of the women was surprised to find out that there were other women in his life.
   
   Much of the book is devoted to O'Neill's pursuit of bin Ladin, especially the investigation of the bombings at the African Embassies in 1998 and the Cole bombing in 2000. While O'Neill wasn't involved directly in the Embassy bombing investigations, he was in charge of the Cole bombing investigation. However, for whatever reason he ran afoul of the local US ambassador, a woman named Barbara Bodine, who started out asserting her control of the investigation and insisting that the Yemenis were offended by O'Neill, and that only she could smoothe things over. This was before O'Neill had met any of the Yemenis yet, but she insisted it was the case. By the time the investigation concluded, Bodine was so sure that withdrawing the FBI investigators was provocative that she ordered Marine guards to keep the FBI agents in the embassy, and had to be told by her superiors at the State Department to let the agents go. After she'd been transferred back to the States and 9/11 happened, the Yemenis became more helpful, and eventually began cooperating extensively with the US. Ambassador Bodine stuck to her guns, however, and even badmouthed O'Neill in an interview after his death.
   
   You have to wonder about this part of the book. Author Weiss was a friend of O'Neill's, and he clearly sides with him against Bodine. It's difficult to see how she could justify what she did (even if O'Neill was despicable, letting her opinion of him subvert this sort of FBI investigation is inexcusable). I expect that somehow she saw through his private life in some fashion. Weiss says that she had been introduced to O'Neill in New York before she became ambassador to Yemen. Perhaps she saw him at a restaurant with a woman other than the one who was escorting him the night they were introduced to each other.
   
   Regardless, this is an interesting book, even if the author, a journalist, occasionally makes a mistake around the periphery of his story. The one I noticed was the author saying that USS The Sullivans was named for some brothers killed on a "carrier" during World War II. The Sullivan brothers were killed on USS Juneau, an Atlanta-class Light Cruiser. Other reviewers have noted mistakes on the edges of the story, but they don't (in my mind, anyway) detract from the main message of his story.

5 comments about The Generalship Of Alexander The Great.

1. Do we know much about Alexander the general? The accounts of his campaigns contain gross exaggerations of the number of battles he faced and are full of what are probably heroic glosses. Hans Delbruck(History of the Art of War) a famous German historian made it his business to try to calculate accurately the numbers of troops involved in many famous battles. He did this by looking at the logistics of movement and feeding armies. He concludes that most of the Greek accounts of the various Persian Wars are wrong.
   
   Prior to Alexander the Greeks were a weak militarily. The reasons for this were partially tactical partially political. Greece did not exist as a political entity. Rather Greek people were split into large numbers of small city states. Yet we should remember that there were a lot of them. Greek people not only lived in Greece but in what is now western Turkey, southern Italy, Sicily and southern France. The Greeks waged war by the use of heavily armed infantry called hoplites. Their infantry were the most advanced infantry of the time and in fact Persia used mercenary Greeks as there strike infantry. The weakness of the Greeks was that they had no real cavalry and they were useless at siege warfare. The Greeks thus had some potential and were able to defeat the Persians in defensive campaigns were they could control the ground and negate the use of cavalry. However in offensive campaigns they were useless as shown by the amateurish attempt by Athens to build an empire in Sicily. When Sparta became the leading power in Greece they were not able to put together any long term campaign to challenge the Persians. In fact the Persians most effective means of defence was to use their treasury to sow discord between the Greek states.
   
   Phillip built up a strong army that had strong cavalry detachments and Alexander became a master at siege warfare. Both Phillip and Alexander were able to unify Greece to form a basis for an assault on the Persians. Some ruthlessness was required as shown by Alexander's destruction of Thebes.
   
   The best argument for Alexander's strategic genius is that advanced by Engels in his book Alexander and the logistics of the Macedonian Army. The Spartans had put armies into Asia Minor but they had not achieved much. Alexander worked out a plan to liberate the Ionian Greeks to increase his logistic base and to keep a supply line open. He then had to defeat the Persian navy. As he did not have the ship to do this he instead conquered the land bases of the fleet. The Phoenician cities. He then was able to conquer Egypt. This meant that the Persians could not send a fleet to invade Greece and he could use the sea to supply his armies with men and food.
   
   If we look at the various battles it would seem that they were mainly decided by the use of heavily armed Greek infantry. At Issus and Gaugamela the Greeks lost less than a thousand men in each battle. At Issus Delbruck makes a convincing argument that the Persians were outnumbered and fought a defensive battle. At Gaugamela the Persians had been unable to recruit mercenary Greeks and had to rely on inferior infantry and cavalry.
   
   If we turn to Fuller's book rather than looking at the broader picture he tries to reconstruct what went on in the battles. He then tries to evaluate from his reconstruction the nature of Alexander's skills. However it is not clear that his reconstruction is more than guesswork and he fails to grasp Alexander's true genius which is his strategic rather than his tactical vision.
   
   The book also contains a long rant in the epilogue about the evils of Britain and the allied adopting a policy of unconditional surrender in the Second World War. Fuller suggests that if it had not been for this the "good Germans" would have removed Hitler from power and it would have all ended with sweetness and light prior to 1945. This of course is simply a bizarre fantasy and raises a question mark about whether he has any ability as a historian.



2. There are many great books about Alexander the Great out there and this one certainly ranks along with the very best. Alexander is many different things to different people, but if there is one thing that the big majority could agree on, it's that Alexander was one of the greatest military commanders (if not THE greatest) of all time and this book focuses on the military aspects of his most astounding career. J.F.C. Fuller is considered one of the best military historians of the 20th century and it's refreshing to read the insights from someone with a thorough military background instead of the opinions from a classical history scholar. Alexander was great at many things but it was as a military leader that he really stood out and this book focuses on that aspect instead of delving into so many other areas as other books tend to do.
   
   I've read many books about Alexander the Great and it's easy to notice the difference between the writings of someone with a military background like Fuller and Peter G. Tsouras and those of "pure" college scholars. This book isn't as thorough as a biography as those from historians dedicated to ancient Greece and Rome, but that's what I liked about this book. It reads fast and is informative without bogging you down with so many names, places, and high-browed academia that seem to be more about impressing other scholars than informing the general reader. When I read some of the "scholarly" books about Alexander, I can't help but think that these historians are simply trying to out-do the other with their opinions than really trying to present objective history.
   
   Surely, Fuller sits in the positive camp and he focuses on Alexander's achievements, strategies, and tactics from a military leader's perspective rather than a college professor's. Fuller doesn't delve into moral ramblings like so many historians seem to do these days. We get the facts and the expert analysis from someone who knows the military inside out, not bookworms sitting in a college office or the home den. You get the insights of someone who understands war, who has been on the front lines with other soldiers, and who knows what it's like to face the enemy and death itself. My beef with historians who sit on some moral high horse and criticize Alexander is that they don't know what it's like to be a soldier, which is what Alexander was - first and foremost. And that's why I believe this book is significant.
   
   Some critics charge that Alexander was a reckless commander who endangered not only his life but those of his soldiers. Well, let's look at the results. Alexander was often heavily outnumbered - sometimes as much as 6 to 1 or even 10 to 1 - but Alexander and the Macedonian army won virtually every battle decisively with minimum losses while the enemies suffered catastrophic casualties. The enemies often suffered 10~20 times as many casualties as Alexander's army did. To those who criticize Alexander's "recklessness" as a general, what would YOU have done to do even better and save more Macedonian lives? Of course, these people wouldn't have a clue but it's easy for them to sit in their easy chair or a school desk and say, "I could have done better."
   
   This book is written by a renowned military general and historian and that means a lot. You can't quite compare that to most books written by university scholars who have no idea what it's like to put one's own life on the line as a soldier in times of war. Fuller writes and extrapolates from the perspective of a soldier, a general, and a leader of men in battle. I just can't see how anyone who hasn't been a soldier can understand what that's really like. Fuller illuminates the mind of the soldier as well as that of Alexander himself as a leader. This book isn't the definitive biography about Alexander, but if you want to read a detailed analysis of Alexander's military battles, campaigns, and achievements from a lifelong military man, it doesn't get any better than this.



3. "The Generalship of Alexander the Great" is a fascinating book on Alexander the Great's life, political leadership and generalship. It was written by Fuller, a retired British General who is a world renowned military historian.
   
   Alexander was a unique leader who inspired his men to perform extraordinary feats and who was highly revered. He led from the front and his presence had decisive sway on his troops. He could quickly read a tactical situation and make decisive moves that would change the course of battle in his favour. His troops were highly mobile and adaptable to various tactical situations.
   
   This is a well researched book with the author citing various credible sources to reinforce his claims and arguments. The book can be easily understood by anybody with an interest in Alexander the Great. The author provides the reader with background information about Macedonia, Persia and other places, has maps which indicate the geographical areas referred to in the campaigns as well as the background to Alexander himself, among other useful details and insights.
   
   From the study of Alexander the Great, today's military commanders have a lot to learn, just as Caesar, Napoleon and Hannibal and others carefully studied Alexander and emulated and adapted some of his methods and techniques to good effect.



4. This book was the first text I ever read about Alexander and was a little bit disappointing. The information is all there (somewhere) but it is not presented in an interesting manner. I was given the book at Christmas and did not finish it yet (May, 02). More than often, the author describes the various conflicting sources of information but does not gives his opinion about which one is the most likely. This happens very frequently with the number of soldier involved in the battles he describes. The book is also rather poor in maps and figures and the text very often mentions places and roads without referring the reader to the existing maps. Some times you read through 2 or 3 pages without fully understanding the description just to find out that the map was there, some pages ahead. Finally, there is no detailed description of the battle units and armaments used at Alexander's times, leading the non-specialist reader to confusion.



5. There are many biographies of Alexander the Great out there. Most tend to look at his influence on the the times he lived in, as well as his legacy to the world. There are many ways to view the Macedonian juggernault. Here we have a unique perspective by a reknowned military historian. JFC Fuller takes Alexander's career and provides a first-rate look and analysis. The book is divided into two roughly equal parts. The first section provides a fast moving mini-bio of his life, emphisizing the major battles and campaigns of Alexander. The depth here is lacking, and purposely so, as this information is only provided in order to follow the discussion of his generalship.
   
   Alexander exercised a unique kind of leadership. In addition to leading from the front in battle, he also combined the abilities of general and statesmen all in one person. In battle Alexander's presence was a decisive influence. He had an innate ability to read a tactical situation, and adapt it to the abilities of his Macedonian army. Its important to understand how important this army was to Alexander's strategy. Without this carefully crafted force which his father, Philip II created, Alexander could not have accomplished what he did. Fuller helps us to understand this by showing how Alexander used this army as a tool for all his endeavors. Its important to remember how much the Macedoonian army out-classed its Persian and Indian opponets. It was also a very versatile army, able to operate in almost any circumstances.
   
   We see Alexander's brilliance both in major and minor battles and campaigns. This book is a must have for the Alexander specialist. It can serve as a useful guide for any of the numerous biographies out there which tend to gloss over many of the details of his generalship. Highly recommended for Alex buffs, and for the recent interest generated by the new movie on this subject.

5 comments about Shake Hands With The Devil: The Failure Of Humanity In Rwanda.

1. What can I say about this book... It is not an easy read and it is important to realize that it is written from the point of view of the General Dallaire, the Force Commander for the operation. The writing is simple and straightforward and it essentially covers Dallaire's life and career first with the Canadian armed forces and later as the head of the ill fated United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR). Dallaire assumes the blame for the numerous failings of UNAMIR while also pointing out that assistance form the UN and from member states was not forthcoming. In a sense, the book makes it clear that since Rwanda has little strategic value to the world, no member nation, other than one or two ex-colonial powers was interested in putting its troops in harms way to prevent the genocide. What is surprising is the fact that the UN and its member nations were acutely aware that the country was headed for an ethnic cleansing and chose to do nothing about it. In the case of the UN, one can't help but feel that the organization was not only sidelined but also manipulated by various Rwandan political parties, ex-colonial powers and UN member states. All in all it makes for an excellent description of the UNAMIR mission as long as one realizes that it only presents the viewpoint of one person



2. Another unfortunate reminder of a holocaust allowed to take place because of our Western-world's refusal to act; blatantly ignoring the fate of a people because of their 'lesser-than-us' status according to our 'civilized' mindset. "Never again." How many more times will we hollowly say that? Romeo Dallaire's account of his harrowing uphill battle against international bureaucracy for a people he made it a moral duty to protect, is an example we can all truly learn from and live by. He bares all, opening the door for us to see into his post-war, tortured mind and soul. His humble question: "Did I do enough?" resonates deeply throughout this must-read.



3. Politics and politicians matter. Even corrupt self-serving politicians bring some structure and stability. We may scoff at politicians, but the fact is when they fail, when they are replaced by ideologues and hate mongers, and when the institutions in which they serve no longer work, the social body dies and people stand naked and unsheltered in the world. Civilization disappears and what we've built to establish justice collapses, plunging us into chaos and horror.
   
   Dallaire's book brings home that the genocide resulted from political failure. Failure first within Rwanda to hold the Hutu extremists in check. Failure of the UN to realize the magnitude of the problem. Failure of the major powers, especially France and the United States, to risk people and material to prevent a massacre. Failure of the Tutsi expatriate forces in Uganda to care for the Tutsi still in Rwanda. And, as Dallaire makes clear, the naïve failure of a soldier to understand that politics matter.
   
   Vincent Poirier, Dublin



4. This is a long book, but still you don't get bored while you are reading it. Mainly I just got upset as I read how Romeo Dallaire tried to stop this genocide from happening. There was an informant telling him that the Hutu extreemists planned to kill the Tutsis. The UN's reaction was to order Dallaire to inform Rwanda officials about what he had been told. This was a very grave mistake, since people who were planning the genocide then would get access to this information.
   Mainly, very little if anything at all was done to stop the planning and the actual genocide to take place. It's disturbing to compare this genocide to the one which took place during WW II. It was decided that this should never happen again, and still there has been Cambodia and Rwanda, and what is happening in Congo nowadays (4 million dead??)
   Dallaire writes that he warned that if the situation wasn't handled with care after the Rwandan civil war and genocide, the risks were high that the entire region would be destabilized. In his book he mentions how this region has been destabilized due to problems that weren't solved.
   It's a disturbing, good and important book written by an eye witness, and I encourage everyone to read it.



5. I did quite a bit of research on Rwanda in 2006 and 2007. This excellent book was by far the best, most accurate source of all the materials I used. I then spent time in Kigali in the summer of 2007, doing extensive interviews with many Rwandan. Unhesitatingly, Dallaire is loved in Rwanda. Those who know of his book regard it as objective and authoritative. I have purchased and given away probably a dozen of this book. It is a MUST READ for all who are seeking an objective report of what transpired in Rwanda in 1993-1994.
   
   Professor Bill

2 comments about 33 Months As A POW In Stalag Luft III: A WWII Airman Tells His Story.

1. For readers knowledgeable about the Great Escape, most of the content of this book is familiar. A unique feature of this book, apart from the undercover photos taken within the camp and during the evacuation on the heels of the Red Army, is the Christmas card sent by Glemnitz to Clark in 1980 (p. 106). Clark also sheds light on the surveying error that led to tunnel Harry coming up short of the treeline. Buildings had stood in the way, making accurate triangulation impossible (73). He also discusses his experiences in the construction of fly-proof latrines, and how he put this practical skill to use in order to solve the insect-latrine problems at Stalag Luft III--to the approval of the Germans (pp. 47-48).
   
   Clark was not directly involved in the Great Escape, as he was in a different compound at the time. But he heard the 5 AM shot that ended the escape. His version of events differs from those of others. He speaks of 50-60 men being forced to crawl back in the tunnel Harry (p. 116). The other works on the Great Escape all describe the use of trolleys to ferry men and equipment through the tunnel, with no more than several men being in the tunnel at any one time. Furthermore, at the time of the Germans' discovery of the tunnel, it was already first dawn, and, for this reason, no more than several additional men were then scheduled to escape out of the tunnel anyway. It would have been 83 total instead of the 76.
   
   The Allied POWs housed in Stalag Luft III included those who were openly Jewish (p. 114). Yet the Germans did not kill them. (This adds refutation to the argument that the Holocaust was unique in that the Nazis sought to kill all known Jews in their grasp.) Clark elaborates on the horrible treatment of the Polish and Russian untermenschen at the hands of the Germans. (p. 49, 178) It is sobering to realize that an American or British Jewish POW had a greater right to live than a Russian gentile POW (of whom 2 million--some sources say 3 million--died in German captivity).
   
   There are only a few obvious errors in this work. Clark repeats the myth of the Polish Air Force getting destroyed on the ground (p. 36) and confuses the city of Lubin with Lublin (p. 102). In general, however, this is a good all-around book.



2. Before this book, I had no idea what it meant to be a prisoner of war in WWII. I was astonished at the things this man and his comrades survived and endured. Crammed into these camps for months (or years, in most cases), they created a community and did their best to keep their bodies and souls alive. I had no idea that the camps were this big or this intricate. 33 Months is an amazing piece of history that makes the reader feel grateful for the creature comforts we all take for granted, as well as for the efforts of the many soldiers who have sacrificed so much for our country.
   Reading this book, I realized that most of the veterans of the big, historic wars are all almost gone from this earth, and that with them a huge piece of history will become less real to us. General Clark is obviously a very honorable man with a good heart, and I'm grateful that he shared his story with the rest of us.

5 comments about Angel's Wing: A Year in the Skies of Vietnam.

1. I bought this book because I served in 1967 with a 1st Aviation Brigade unit that flew in basically the same AO, but usually in support of the 1st Infantry Division. I wanted to see what he said about areas I knew.
   
   Unlike many accounts that are chronological in nature, this one covers different aspects of a helicopter pilot and A/Cs responsibilities and experiences, without an attempt to lay them out in strict chronological order. I think you'll find this book highly readable and informative by a writer who is quite self-effacing about a very action-packed tour accompanied by some significant decorations (DFC and Silver Star) mentioned only at the very close of the book. Along the way you'll learn a lot about how a helicopter is flown and why.
   
   This book will sneak up on you due to the author's quiet style.



2. I do not believe that anyone who buys this book will feel cheated. It's an interesting perspective of a helicopter pilot's life and duties in Vietnam. To Finch's credit he didn't write this as a query letter hoping to attract a Hollywood producer. Frankly, I do not know why this book was mached up with my book on my page, this is a really good book.



3. It was a pleasure reading Joe Finch's memoir. It was a great anthem by one who spent those years in the trenches. I was one who was fortunate to have avoided Southeast Asia in the 60's, but was a guy probably not much different than this boy who emerged an accomplished soldier and man.
   
   Angel's Wing... is a good read. You will zoom through it feeling as though you shared a substantive experience with Joe Finch.



4. I received a copy of Joes book from my daughter. My tour in Vietnam basicly overlaped Finch's. I was tthe Company Commander of a 25th Infantry Div Infanrty Company and was a frequent passanger and satisfied customers of the "Little Bears" services. Finch accuratly portrays the chopper pilot's role in Vietnam. From my prespective God bless the pilots they not only hauled us into trouble they always came back and got us out of it.



5. Do you have any heroes? These days, it seems no one has any heroes any more. We are always so quick to judge, so at ease with tearing apart every action and every moment of another's life that we just refuse to admire anyone any more. I honestly think this is true of most people, but not me. I have plenty of heroes. My 8th grade English teacher, Mr. Donald Duncan, a retired Vietnam veteran by the name of John Power from my hometown and Joe Finch, the author of this book, are just three of them.
   I have said before and I truly do believe that the helicopter pilots of the Vietnam War either had nerves of steel or no nerves at all! How they could fly for hours at a time, when in any peace time situation they would have been grounded, I will never be able to fathom. Sure, they were a bit dare-devilish but I think it was a survival skill. In order to do unordinary things, you have to believe you can! Honestly, I think the reason most of those men climbed right back in that pilot seat time and time again sometimes flying on pure adrenalin was not their own ego at all, but for the countless lives they tried to save. I would imagine many soldiers have referred to these pilots and their ships as angels, hence the name of this book, but considering what these pilots did, I would think the angels were the ones flying next to the helicopter.
   This small book can easily be read in a long afternoon and is worth the read. It is lighthearted at times, speaking to the antics of a young pilot trying to make his way in the world and trying to survive a place and time few of us can even imagine, even with his help. His candor and plain English makes it possible for any reader to understand the tools and techniques he describes. The book is in no way graphic and yet as with other fine authors I have reviewed, it is graphic all the same. Not in its nature, but in the nature of the beast he describes. I would imagine he struggled with words to describe certain passages in the book that would explain but not horrify the reader. I don't really think that is possible. His words are far from graphic, but the time in his life that he describes is......
   This is a fine book and Joe Finch is a fine human being. He says in his book that he served his country and came home undamaged. He married, raised a family and went on to a very productive life. I guess he says this to underscore that not all soldiers develop Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Not every man or woman that came home from war became addicted to drugs or alcohol or became homeless. Many soldiers came home to function as if nothing ever happened to them at all.In his case, it sounds as if that is true. However, I will say this, something did happen to Joe Finch and two million or so other soldiers who served. I know a little something about our Joe Finch and to the contrary of his ascertion, he has been deeply affected by his service in Vietnam. Of course he has. He has a kind heart not a hardened heart of one who does not feel. He is part of a group of men and women who visit wounded soldiers at their bedside, he writes letters and sends care packages to those deployed overseas and I would venture to say that he knows the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial like the back of his heart. Of course he was affected by his service to our country, and so was I, and in no small way it is because of men like him that I am so honored to write reviews of books like this. Read this book and when you have finished, take a moment and write the author. Will you tell him that you admire him as much as I do? Will you tell him that you appreciate his sacrifices? You should.

No comments about Master of Airpower: General Carl A. Spatz.