TRANSFORMATION OF WAR

Rating:
Summary: BRAVO!!!
Review: Although this book was written in 1991 the scenarios and tendencies discussed in the book are now becoming reality in terrorism, civil wars in Africa and the Balkans, and the fruitless war in the Middle East between Israel and the Palestinians.

Creveld convincingly argues that the new conflicts will not neccessarily be fought between states, and that technology and military superiority are not neccessarily guarantees of victory. Creveld shows that while the militaries of the West has run away on a shopping spree to acqurie the new nifty things in the shape of fighter jets, submarines, and laser guided missiles the enemy in the shape of guerillas and terrorist have acquired other, less advanced means, to fight back. The US helicopters that were shot down in Somalia and Afghanistan were not taken down with high tech missiles - instead they were grounded by RPG-7s, a grenade launcher from the 1950s.

But Creveld does so much more with this book. Rather than being a book only about the future of war it is about the future of the international system. Creveld's book has greatly influenced other writers such as Robert Kaplan who wrote "The Coming Anarchy".

Believers in technology, the wonders of globalization, and the supremacy of the nation state should read this book and seriously consider it. The world as we know it might not be around in the future - and it doesn't look pretty.

Rating:
Summary: the new clausewitz
Review: In the not too distant future, this book will eclipse Clausewitz's On War. Van Creveld's work truly explains a major on-going transformation of warfare--a transformation we are having a hard time dealing with.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent Argument Draws The Wrong Conclusion
Review: Martin van Crevald is truely one of the best strategic thinkers whom is writing today. In his more classic books like 'Supplying War: Logistics from Wallerstein to Patton' he wrote VERY credible military history that shook some of the foundations of less-sound strategic thought that was occuring concurrently; he has also written a powerful critique of people who have hopped on the shoulders of NGOs and non-state actors AND state-centered people in 'The Rise and Decline of the State'. Personally, these have over time become two of my favorite books: perhaps a couple years from now, this shall finish the trinity.

Van Crevald puts forth a case that the era of massed conventional wars have finished. For a variety of reasons, the Central-front type conflicts between the USSR and US of the fifties never happened and never will. The more conflicts have happened, the more correct he appears (this book is already eleven years old...) Trying to prepare for them is silly (much in the same way , he asserts, that National Missile Defense is....)

This is a must read for students of military strategy and affairs and international politics in general. Its quite a worthwhile book as general reading, though I think that it might be at present out of print. I highly recommend it-- and the other books listed at the beginning of this review....

Rating:
Summary: A Clear Look at the Future of War
Review: Martin van Creveld obviously completed this book before August 1990 (© 1961) because there is no reference to the Gulf War. And yet his discussion of the new kind of war that will dominate the 21st Century anticipates everything that happened in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. He may not name Osama bin Ladin, but he clearly describes him. This book is eerily prescient. For once the book jacket blurb is absolutely on the mark: "For professional soldiers, to neglect this book is to neglect our duty."

Rating:
Summary: Start with the ending
Review: Mr. Van Creveld did some good work here. This volume gives a good background on the history of war and warfare. The problem is that he spent too much time on the historical perspective. Most of the treatise should have focused on the prologue i.e. how and why war will be transformed. Now, these comments may be unfair because the book was written before September 11th (i.e. the early 90s) Bottom Line: Mr. Van Creveld needs to immediately start on the next book because he has hard data to back up his assertions.

Rating:
Summary: The words of a prophet and a teacher of Homer
Review: To understand the review is to first know the reviewer: My background is aesthetic and I'm a teacher of literature. I stumbled across this book almost by accident; I haven't been the same since.

Prophecy is a tough trade; Van Creveld passes the test. This work is the first and best study of what is now called "4th Generation War". Indeed, it is not only -- put plain and simple -- the best theoretical work on war since Clausewitz, but it also offers an astonishingly pellucid view into the future of war. In Chapter 6, Van Creveld reaches a level of insight and eloquence about the fighting man not seen since Homer. Anyone who grew up hating war during the Vietman period, or who formed his views on war from Paul Fussell, or who posted greazy posters about how "war is not healthy for children and other living things" needs to allow himself to be transformed by _The Transformation of War_, Chapter 6. It transformed me. I never understood _The Iliad_ until I had read Van Creveld.

Must reading for all citizens. This best book I read in the 1990s -- so good that now I give talks about it.

Rating:
Summary: What is War? Why War? The War of the Future!
Review: What is war?

War is the army that fights it. Soldiers are warriors guided by rules of engagement. Some consider war to be the maximum violence a civilization can inflict on another civilization; however, if this were true then every soldier would be a murder, mobster, villian, or outlaw. War is governed by the laws of war. This is not to say every situation in war follows the laws of war, but in general if soldiers did not belief in their cause and the rules of engagement then massive depression, resistence, and disorder would prevail. War conflicts are about organization, planning, intelligence, and moral resolve. War is about idealogy. Rules of war generally do not require or should not allow the killing of innocent non-combatants. The white flag means the contest if over and no resistence is to be expected from the combatant. Historically, numerous war criminals, dictators, and geo political entities have violated these maxims and killed with no regard to human life. Soldiers who violate the rules of engagement lose motivation, sense of purpose, and often resort of methods of escaptism such as drugs and abandonment. Technology and war: the bow and arrow was not consider chivareous and not immediately employeed into modern warfare; technology transformed the methods of killing by increasing the range of the weapon: phalax, arrow, cannon, ICBM, to the sleath bomber; chemical and biological weapons are so horrible they are not used. An when weapons of mass destruction are used the horror is increased. As longer periods of time ellaspe between their usage, lower propensity to use them increases.

Why is there war?

The compelling reason there is war is because the soldier is willing to risk his life for an ideal. To say the soldier fights for self-interest is absolutely incorrect. The concept of wars being fought by foreign mercenaries is not new. However, no war was every won by a group of foreign mercenaries. If war was about self interest then soldiers would be committing acts of murder, rape, or pillaging. War is not an unnoble act of greed, lust, or hatred. Soldiers are not monsters of illegal violence. Soldiers follow orders. They are not held responsible for those they kill in the contest while following orders. The act of war is one of the most selfless acts and is praised with some of the highest honours give by men. In order to fight the soldier must be willing to risk his life. These reasons can be : to preserve a way of life, to protect one's family or nation, and to protect another soldier in arms. War can create powerful emotions, such as a compelling belief and feeling of exhileration, pride, honour centering around soldier mission, leader, or cause. Unnecessary killing is avoided when possible. Careful planning and information helps the soldier to know the boundaries of war and prevents the soldier from unnecessary killing. Communities mourn and support the families of lost soldiers. The given life of a soldier is considered as an example of bravery, courage, and love. Just as the Greeks would not leave their fallen comrades neither do the Marines abandon their dead. This connection increases the unity in the ranks, risks they are willing to take for each other, and increases their sense of purpose and identity.

The inability to achieve objectives can kill a soldier half to death, as in the case of the trench wars of World War I where no side could circle and trap the opponent to end the conflict; and today, terrorist present the same dillema as they have not stationary base and so a rapid conflict decreases in effectiveness. But this much is sure Technology, information, strategy, and idealogy combine to transform war and with this adaption - the war of the future is sure to materialize.

Rating:
Summary: What is War? Why War? The War of the Future!
Review: What is war?

War is the army that fights it. Soldiers are warriors guided by rules of engagement. Some consider war to be the maximum violence a civilization can inflict on another civilization; however, if this were true then every soldier would be a murder, mobster, villian, or outlaw. War is governed by the laws of war. This is not to say every situation in war follows the laws of war, but in general if soldiers did not belief in their cause and the rules of engagement then massive depression, resistence, and disorder would prevail. War conflicts are about organization, planning, intelligence, and moral resolve. War is about idealogy. Rules of war generally do not require or should not allow the killing of innocent non-combatants. The white flag means the contest if over and no resistence is to be expected from the combatant. Historically, numerous war criminals, dictators, and geo political entities have violated these maxims and killed with no regard to human life. Soldiers who violate the rules of engagement lose motivation, sense of purpose, and often resort of methods of escaptism such as drugs and abandonment. Technology and war: the bow and arrow was not consider chivareous and not immediately employeed into modern warfare; technology transformed the methods of killing by increasing the range of the weapon: phalax, arrow, cannon, ICBM, to the sleath bomber; chemical and biological weapons are so horrible they are not used. An when weapons of mass destruction are used the horror is increased. As longer periods of time ellaspe between their usage, lower propensity to use them increases.

Why is there war?

The compelling reason there is war is because the soldier is willing to risk his life for an ideal. To say the soldier fights for self-interest is absolutely incorrect. The concept of wars being fought by foreign mercenaries is not new. However, no war was every won by a group of foreign mercenaries. If war was about self interest then soldiers would be committing acts of murder, rape, or pillaging. War is not an unnoble act of greed, lust, or hatred. Soldiers are not monsters of illegal violence. Soldiers follow orders. They are not held responsible for those they kill in the contest while following orders. The act of war is one of the most selfless acts and is praised with some of the highest honours give by men. In order to fight the soldier must be willing to risk his life. These reasons can be : to preserve a way of life, to protect one's family or nation, and to protect another soldier in arms. War can create powerful emotions, such as a compelling belief and feeling of exhileration, pride, honour centering around soldier mission, leader, or cause. Unnecessary killing is avoided when possible. Careful planning and information helps the soldier to know the boundaries of war and prevents the soldier from unnecessary killing. Communities mourn and support the families of lost soldiers. The given life of a soldier is considered as an example of bravery, courage, and love. Just as the Greeks would not leave their fallen comrades neither do the Marines abandon their dead. This connection increases the unity in the ranks, risks they are willing to take for each other, and increases their sense of purpose and identity.

The inability to achieve objectives can kill a soldier half to death, as in the case of the trench wars of World War I where no side could circle and trap the opponent to end the conflict; and today, terrorist present the same dillema as they have not stationary base and so a rapid conflict decreases in effectiveness. But this much is sure Technology, information, strategy, and idealogy combine to transform war and with this adaption - the war of the future is sure to materialize.

Rating:
Summary: Worth Reading
Review: What this book is about is described by the title: The Transformation of War. The book is an examination of the factors which influenced the development of military practice in the West. There are two main factors:(a)the development of technology, particularly as it applies to weapons and their use in war and (b)the influence of Karl von Clausewitz and his theories of war on Western military establishments. The importance of technology and of Clausewitz came about as a result of the pre-eminence of the Prussian military in Europe in the latter part of the 19th century. They were one of the first military establishments to successfully use new technologies in the development of artillery, communications (the telegraph) and especially the railroad to help them fight wars. As a result armies in other countries adopted many of their ideas and practices, including Clausewitz's theories on the nature of war.
Van Creveld argues that in today's world, reliance upon technology alone to solve military problems, simply will not work. There is no all-purpose technological solution to the problems that modern armies face. To support his argument he cites the experiences of the Israeli Army during the invasion of Lebanon in 1983. The Israeli Army which invaded was the best equipped, most powerful military force in Israel's history. Yet it ended by becoming bogged down in Lebanon against a foe armed mainly with Kalashnikovs and RPG's. He also argues that Clausewitz and his theories about the nature of war, and how it should be fought are no longer applicable. For example, Clausewitz believed that the essence of war involved a climatic final battle in which opposing armies fought until one was destroyed or surrendered. Only in this way could victory be guaranteed to the winner. The problem is, he doesn't have much to say about terrorist attacks or fighting and defeating an insurgency. As a consequence you have armies which are created, trained, and equipped to fight conventional wars trying to defeat terrorists or insurgents who have absolutely no intention of fighting that kind of war. What these armies are looking for is an opposing army that they can engage in battle. But the enemy that they're fighting doesn't fight that way, so a battle such as Clausewitz describes is never going to take place. Basically, these armies are trained to fight the wrong kind of war.
In light of events which are now taking place in Iraq the insights and analysis that the book provides are especially relevant. If you want to get some understanding of why things are going the way going in Iraq, you should read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Amazing!!!
Review: When I finished reading this book I could hardly believe that a writer could prophesize the future war events in such a clear way. Van Creveld's thesis is that war as we know it in the last 3,5 centuries (waged between states and organized armies) has reached its end and is now in a process of radical tramsformation. Analyzing many examples from the military history he suggests that we are entering into an era where states lose the monopoly of waging war and confront non-state actors who do not embrace the same philosophical values. Van Creveld overturns Clauzewitz's traditional views one by one, using very convincing arguments, and unfortunately he is confirmed by international events today. While reading the book there were many cases when I was dumbfounded by the fact that a writer completing his work near the end of the Cold War could see our era with such a clarity, and I was really amazed by the fact that the book was written in 1991. It is more modern than anything else I have read on the subject of modern war and surpasses even contemporary analysis. Van Creveld does not avoid to touch even hot topics, like the sheer joy of fighting (paraphrasing Clausewitz he states that war is more the continuation of sports by other means than politics) the taboo of introducing women in the armies, the role of religion in the motivation of war and the very important argument that war does not begin when someone is willing to kill but when he is willing to die for a cause. The accuracy of his predictions is often so amazing that it becomes terrifying, especially when he states that in the future the war leaders will not be legitimate government officials but something like "The Old Man in the Mountains", meaninig the kind of warfare waged by assassins in the Middle Ages. He is also very critical against the current military-industrial complex and its super-expensive creations of high tech weapons, saying that all this paraphernalia of old war are like dinosaurs about to face extinction. This is a highly recommended book and it is sure that it will change many of your establised views on war.