How Wars Are Won : The 13 Rules of War - from Ancient Greece to the War on Terror

Rating:
Summary: A must read.
Review: Bevin Alexander's book is a must read for any one interested in the principles of warfare and how future warfare is likely to be conducted. On page one he gets to the crux of the matter. "Two unrelated developments have fused to produce a true revolution in warfare. The first is highly accurate and extremely powerful weapons. The second is the discovery that modern conventional armies can be defeated by guerilla methods." His first chapter breaks the most new ground for how future wars will be fought by the U.S. His idea of "swarming" using pods or clusters of small units tailored for specific missions was very much in evidence in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of these units to surround and attack from many different angles simultaneously using superior weaponry will be how our forces fight in the foreseeable future. He recognizes that our technological superiority will be our great advantage in warfare for years to come.

Alexander's chapter on terrorist's strengths and weakness' is very illuminating since it was written after the September 11th attacks. "Terrorism has one great strength: it makes sneak attacks on unsuspecting people, and thus is difficult to prevent. But it also has one profound weakness: it operates as a clandestine cell in an alien environment, and thus can be isolated." He gives a good account of how to fight terrorism and why terrorists ultimately loose.

This book is a great read for laymen and professional alike. In light of today's dangers that we as a nation face I highly recommend reading this book.

Rating:
Summary: Winning With Indirect Methods
Review: Noted Military Historian Bevin Alexander's latest effort represents an expansion of BH Liddell Hart's work. In his classic text on strategy, Liddell Hart differentiates between direct and indirect methods of warfare, and finds the latter to be by far the more successful approach. Liddell Hart does not examine different types of indirect action, however, and this is where Alexander's work comes in. Alexander begins with the premise that frontal assaults against fortified positions should never be attempted. Attacks should always come from the side or rear. This has the advantage of striking the enemy where they are weaker, and perhaps more importantly, it throws them off psychologically, disorienting, and frightening them. Alexander lists thirteen such variations on these same ideas, such as encirclement, holding in one place and striking another, creating diversions, cutting of the enemy's retreat, etc. Each method receives its own chapter, accompanied by several historical examples of the successful execution of the tactic, usually taken from as many different eras as possible. Of particular note are the examples taken from Stonewall Jackson's campaigns, a subject on which Alexander is one of the leading authorities. In writing this work it seems clear that Alexander is trying to place himself in line with the classics of military theory: Sun-Tzu, Clausewitz, Liddell Hart. Only time will tell whether or not he achieves this lofty goal. In the meantime there is little doubt that this fascinating and well-written work should be closely examined military strategists, historians, and armchair generals.

Rating:
Summary: 13 Rules That No Longer Apply...Or Do They...Maybe
Review: One of the few books I've had to put down. This is because of it's redundancy, encyclopaedic breadth at the expense of depth, and it's premature obselesence.

Written post 9/11, pre Gulf War II, it's a summary of 13 military battlefield strategies. Pretty much each has an ancient example, middle example (1200-1850), and modern example (1850-1970). All well and good as an excercise in categorization, but each chapter inevitably ends with: this rule has been true for 2000 years; America's military supremacy makes the rule obsolete; I'm not sure what a future battlefield is going to look like, but somehow this rule will apply despite what I just said that the rule no longer applies.

The few times Alexander speculates about details of future battlefields--in particular Iraq--actual events have proven him to be off target. He's also enamored with today's technology of instant information, total observation by satellite and unmanned Predator reconnaisance planes; which as far as he's concerned means you'll never see an army larger than a platoon ever again.

For every military theorist who's correctly predicted the impact of a new technology, there's a dozen who've been way off. Alexander is most likely going to join the group of dozens.

One problem that Alexander sites a few powerful times, but fails to apply to his vision of the future, is the cycle of technological sumpremacy. Inevitably, one side developes a strategy or weapon that makes them king of the world, inevitably opponents develop a defense or a counter to this supremacy thus leveling the battlefield. All of Alexander's predictions essentially point to endless American supremacy thanks to our technology, but doesn't history show enemies of America will (WILL) find a counter someday? Somehow, for Alexander, that timeless rule doesn't apply now either.

And just like his book with no conclusion, this review has none either.

Rating:
Summary: 13 Rules That No Longer Apply...Or Do They...Maybe
Review: One of the few books I've had to put down. This is because of it's redundancy, encyclopaedic breadth at the expense of depth, and it's premature obselesence.

Written post 9/11, pre Gulf War II, it's a summary of 13 military battlefield strategies. Pretty much each has an ancient example, middle example (1200-1850), and modern example (1850-1970). All well and good as an excercise in categorization, but each chapter inevitably ends with: this rule has been true for 2000 years; America's military supremacy makes the rule obsolete; I'm not sure what a future battlefield is going to look like, but somehow this rule will apply despite what I just said that the rule no longer applies.

The few times Alexander speculates about details of future battlefields--in particular Iraq--actual events have proven him to be off target. He's also enamored with today's technology of instant information, total observation by satellite and unmanned Predator reconnaisance planes; which as far as he's concerned means you'll never see an army larger than a platoon ever again.

For every military theorist who's correctly predicted the impact of a new technology, there's a dozen who've been way off. Alexander is most likely going to join the group of dozens.

One problem that Alexander sites a few powerful times, but fails to apply to his vision of the future, is the cycle of technological sumpremacy. Inevitably, one side developes a strategy or weapon that makes them king of the world, inevitably opponents develop a defense or a counter to this supremacy thus leveling the battlefield. All of Alexander's predictions essentially point to endless American supremacy thanks to our technology, but doesn't history show enemies of America will (WILL) find a counter someday? Somehow, for Alexander, that timeless rule doesn't apply now either.

And just like his book with no conclusion, this review has none either.

Rating:
Summary: The Dark Art of War
Review: September 11 marked a turning point in the grim history of warfare. Though the attacking terrorists were given aid and comfort by at least one rogue state with an anti-American agenda, they were not acting as the agents of any particular country. They used weapons that they found "in the theater" (i.e., fuel-laden civilian airliners) to inflict enormous casulaties on an unsuspecting civilian population. The 21st century thus began with the first "asymmetrical" war between a superpower and a shadowy but deadly opponent.

Bevin Alexander agrees that September 11 is a watershed event that "dramatically changed the face of war." But he also notes that the terrorists used the ancient tactic of the ambush, a hit-and-run strike against a defenseless or unprepared opponent. Though the "war against terrorism" will doubtless offer up cruel novelties in the years to come, Bevin argues that history still has much to teach us about the strategies that win wars.

"How Wars Are Won" devotes a single chapter to each of 13 rules of war. Bevin explains how these rules work in practice by describing examples drawn from throughout history. For instance, the rule of "defend, then attack" is illustrated by battles that occurred during wars as diverse as the Byzantine invasion of Italy, the Hundred Years War and the American Civil War.

Bevin writes fairly well, and he does an excellent job of explaining why history's greatest generals won their battles, and why lesser leaders managed to lose. I came away with a much better appreciation of the genius of Napoleon, Alexander the Great and Stonewall Jackson.

"How Wars are Won" also offers many interesting observations about how future wars are likely to be waged--including the one that will probably be fought in Iraq. Bevin's book is required reading for another dark time in world history.

Rating:
Summary: "Winning Wars for Dummies" this ain't.....
Review: There is no question that Alexander has a brilliant command of historical battles. As a guidebook about what the 13 rules of war are and examples of them in real life, this book ranks at the top. And the battles are described in such interesting detail that the reader finds himself cheering for the brilliant general and sighing for the unfortunate opponent. The problem I found with the book is that it reads much like an encyclopedia. Every chapter is completely disconnected from the others and there is little "cross referencing" indicating what the drawbacks and weaknesses of many of the rules are. Using superior weapons or methods might always be good but attacking the heart of the enemy might be good sometimes and disastrous other times. To his credit, the author does sometimes say what the hapless opponent should have done.

Still, the book is a good read for discriptions of battle strategies and the background of some major campaigns.

Rating:
Summary: Not for everyone
Review: This book kinda caught be by surprise at first. Mainly it talked about how to win wars nowadays, against terrorist and not a full fledge conventional army. I continued to read though and found that the author does a very good job of comparing strategies used in the past with ways to win wars today. Another fact I enjoyed was that he does not care which side he is on. Constantly I read books that only take the American side, well in this book it plainly shows stupid maneuvers by American commanders from the enemy side. However, if you are someone who wants a book dedicated to looking at past battles and how they were won this is not for you. Although it does go into fantastic detail with plenty of maps, the book is about today and how to win the small unit actions required in todays world.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent !!!
Review: Written by a seasoned historian, this book takes you into the minds of the commanders on both sides, as you relive some of the most innovative campaigns in history. The author analyzes
each campaign step by step, comparing not only the moves made by each player, but also pointing out possible alternative moves not taken, and their consequences. Sometimes you feel like you're watching the World Chess Championship ringside. You can experience the visceral thrill of battle right in the safety of your living room, and appreciate the brilliance of the great generals, as they unleash unexpected or unstoppable attacks on their opponents, as they move towards checkmate in the great game.

And if this leaves you hungry for more, check out the author's earlier masterpiece, "How Great Generals Win" - after all buying both books gets you a hefty discount on Amazon! Here the author studies the methods of each general in considerably more detail than in his latest book. Or if you're an aficionado of WWII, go grab "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II", which is a great piece of kriegspiel.