<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Very good...
Review: "Acts of War" examines the behavior of men under fire by using a combined historical/anthropological approach to the institution of soldiering. It's unfortunate that more titles are not available on this subject. "Acts of War" is a complementary prelude to similar works such as "The Savage Mind", "On Aggression", and "On Killing". Holmes doesn't propogate the "Marshall myth" premise that most troops will refuse to fire their weapons when actively engaged with the enemy. Archived combat footage filmed during the Second World War, Korea, and Vietnam disproves that theory at a glance. It's unfortunate that S.L.A.M. has had such a pervasive influence on the U.S. Army's marksmanship training program for the last fifty years (if you disagree I urge you to consult after-action reports on Marine marksmanship in France extolling the virtues of the KD [known distance] course). Holmes goes on to provide ample evidence supporting his argument that Man is naturally predisposed to warfare. Holmes has been accused of defaming and minimizing the role of women in combat. It's an unjustified accusation. Female combatants are the exception to the rule, not the norm, and their historical contribution has been sensationalized. "Acts of War" is reminiscent of Keegan's "The Face of Battle" yet much more detailed when discussing the development and maturation of a soldier's psyche.
Rating: 
Summary: very good
Review: I write this review because it seems that most reviews are writed on the basis of the theories or ideas of the author confronted to others the reviewers prefer.
I am not an expert in militar books, I just bought this book because I picked it from a shelve and I thought I would like to read something about the subject of human behaviour in war.
I found it deep, well writen and fairly interesiting. I have recommended it to frequent business literature readers and they also loved it and found in it new views of human behaviour under maximum stress circumstances.
From an average man point of view, not expert in militar literature, I think it is a must read.
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed work of a historian with no sociological credibility
Review: There is no doubt that much of what Holmes writes is true or solidly based in fact. However, there are glaring ommissions from this book that are quite damming.
Holmes quotes Col. S.L.A. Marshall at length throughout the book. And yet, despite this pattern, not once (that I could find anyway) did Holmes mention the massive WW II Marshall study which concluded that the *majority* of US combat troops did not fire in the heat of combat.
Marshall showed how many soldiers, in the heat of combat, exhibit "posturing" which is identical to behavior exhibited throughout the animal world. The idea is to look and sound aggressive without actually attacking to kill. In combat this might mean shooting wildly in various directions, shooting over the enemy's heads, etc. To the casual eye (e.g. watching archival combat footage) this looks like true combat, but it's not. Marshall discovered this behavior through interviews with countless US soldiers who admitted (with much guilt) what they had done.
The result of that study was the overhaul of basic training and boot camp so that soldiers not only experienced the sights and sounds of combat, but that they also simulate killing as much as possible - which in turn has resulted in a huge majority of US soldiers (since Vietnam) actually shooting to kill.
Essentially, the Marshall study negates much of Holme's central thesis that warfare is "natural" for men and that most men seek it out willingly.
Holmes also gives lip service to women and combat and uses convenient examples to discredit. For example, many people use Israel as an example of a sexually intregated force. This is despite the fact, as Holmes points out, that women really don't handle weapons much in the Israeli military. However, there is at least one force that Holmes failed to mention -- the Viet Cong which consisted of over 75 percent women! Because he doesn't mention that example, he can easily sweep the issue of sex under the rug. The truth of the matter is, in war environments where one side views itself as attempting to liberate itself women usually play an integral role, including combat. This was seen throughout the 20th century.
Holmes' sociological ignorance is never more obvious than when he discusses the sexuality of soldiers versus those who oppose war. Soldiers biologically want sex with women more! Holmes issues this proclamation without the slightest effort to back it up or to explore other options. In Holmes' world all soldiers are heterosexual and want lots of sex. This would certainly be surprising to the many great homosexual military leaders in warfare history. And I think quite a few "peaceniks" from the 60's might have some contrary evidence to offer Holmes as well.
Holmes is a historian with a military background. He is not a sociologist and he lacks the experience, training and understanding to explore deeper issues and to look at contradictions to his beliefs.
I give this book two stars just because this is important field to look at. Hopefully someone with better understanding of the use of propaganda (from all sides), gender roles, sexism, cultural history (that isn't Anglo Saxon!) will come along and do this topic justice.
Rating:
Summary: Misleading and ethnocentric
Review: There is no doubt that much of what Holmes writes is true or solidly based in fact. However, there are glaring ommissions from this book that are quite damming.Holmes quotes Col. S.L.A. Marshall at length throughout the book. And yet, despite this pattern, not once (that I could find anyway) did Holmes mention the massive WW II Marshall study which concluded that the *majority* of US combat troops did not fire in the heat of combat. The result of that study was the overhaul of basic training and boot camp so that soldiers not only experienced the sights and sounds of combat, but that they also simulate killing as much as possible. The Marshall study negates much of Holme's central thesis that warfare is "natural" for men and that most men seek it out willingly. Holmes also gives lip service to women and combat and uses convenient examples to discredit. For example, many people use Israel as an example of a sexually intregated force. This is despite the fact, as Holmes points out, that women really don't handle weapons much in the Israeli military. However, there is at least one force that Holmes failed to mention -- the Viet Cong which consisted of over 75 percent women! Because he doesn't mention that example, he can easily sweep the issue of sex under the rug. The truth of the matter is, in war environments where one side views itself as attempting to liberate itself women usually play an integral role, including combat. Holmes' sociological ignorance is never more obvious then when he discusses the sexuality of soldiers versus those who oppose war. Soldiers biologically want sex with women more! Holmes issues this proclamation without the slightest effort to back it up or to explore other options. In Holmes' world all soldiers are heterosexual and want lots of sex. This would certainly be surprising to the many great homosexual military leaders in warfare history. And I think quite a few "peaceniks" from the 60's might have some contrary evidence to offer Holmes as well. Holmes is a historian with a military background. He is not a sociologist and he lacks the experience, training and understanding to explore deeper issues and to look at contradictions to his beliefs. I give this book two stars just because this is important field to look at. Hopefully someone with better understanding of the use of propaganda (from all sides), gender roles, sexism, cultural history (that isn't Anglo Saxon!) will come along and do this topic justice.
Rating:
Summary: Very revealing
Review: This book is a very revealing look at why the military does things the way it does. For example, many civilians do not understand the mindless brutality of basic training or the ultra-masculine culture of the military. This book puts everything into a real psychological perspective and explains why things are the way they are in the military. May be hard for civilians to relate to, but veterans will find this book very revealing.
Rating: 
Summary: third rate historian's psychobabble
Review: What more would you expect from a revisionist historian whose books read like novels, with no researches yet dressing up all half baked hypotheses as proven theses. Treat this book as some infantile rantings from an inadequate mind.
<< 1 >>
|
