War In The Shadows: The Guerrilla in History

Rating:
Summary: War In The Shadows: Fascinating!
Review: A must for any Military and History buff. This book has bought me endless hours of reading enjoyment. As a Latino, of most interest to me were the chapters on the Mexican revolution, Spanish-American war and Che Guevara. Asprey writes in great detail and in chronological order, he also provides the reader with the political and social climate of the time and events that lead to any engagements against opposing forces. Keeping any opinions to himself, he just gives the fact as if we all are spectators viewing a movie. Asprey describes the guerrilla units, their political indoctrination, strength and weakness and field attire and equipment. The maps help illustrated the subject area and regions, any troop movements and battles fought that help paint the complete picture. He presents any leading figure with importance and when able too delves into their personal histories and background. I'd fancied myself a authority on History and warfare till I read Asprey "War In The Shadows" and found out just how much I wasn't aware of. So put this on your list of reading materials and tell your friends.

Rating:
Summary: The Shadows Wars: Why Americans Can't Learn from the Past
Review: When War in the Shadows (WITS) was first published in 1975, it infuriated members of the US military. Asprey's denunciation of high-ranking officers' conduct of the war in Vietnam came under intense criticism. Asprey claimed the US military lost that war due to its total ignorance of unconventional guerrilla warfare. Though blackballed by military scholars for almost a decade, he refused to retract his accusations. Instead, he continued to cite 2000 years of guerrilla/terrorist warfare tactics, operations, and strategy as proof the US military violated most, if not all, principles of unconventional warfare. Nineteen years later, he revised WITS, and along with that revision came a newfound respect for his insights. WITS is still the most definitive study of guerrilla/terrorist warfare available and it continues to remind the military of the requirement to fully understand this type of warfare's capabilities and limitations.
Overall, Asprey's work is very edifying. His 30 year research effort brillantly imparts lessons needed today. His reminders to the military about going off to an unconventional theater of war "half-cocked" contain some of the most valuable military thinking of our time. WITS is more than a historical appraisal. It is a usable text of events that, while historically embedded, continue to speak to the contemporary experience of unconventional warfare.

Rating:
Summary: The Shadows Wars: Why Americans Can't Learn from the Past
Review: When War in the Shadows (WITS) was first published in 1975, it infuriated members of the US military. Asprey's denunciation of high-ranking officers' conduct of the war in Vietnam came under intense criticism. Asprey claimed the US military lost that war due to its total ignorance of unconventional guerrilla warfare. Though blackballed by military scholars for almost a decade, he refused to retract his accusations. Instead, he continued to cite 2000 years of guerrilla/terrorist warfare tactics, operations, and strategy as proof the US military violated most, if not all, principles of unconventional warfare. Nineteen years later, he revised WITS, and along with that revision came a newfound respect for his insights. WITS is still the most definitive study of guerrilla/terrorist warfare available and it continues to remind the military of the requirement to fully understand this type of warfare's capabilities and limitations.
Overall, Asprey's work is very edifying. His 30 year research effort brillantly imparts lessons needed today. His reminders to the military about going off to an unconventional theater of war "half-cocked" contain some of the most valuable military thinking of our time. WITS is more than a historical appraisal. It is a usable text of events that, while historically embedded, continue to speak to the contemporary experience of unconventional warfare.