Rating: 
Summary: A xenophobic and imperialist book
Review: This book is a good source of inspiration for all of those North Americans who are fond of seeing themselves as chosen by providence to teach the world how to live and empowered by the same source to bully other nations around. After reading this book North Americans may most likely be motivated to support Reagan-like foreign agenda for the glorification of the United States. As expected from a writer that wants to aggrandize his own country to the detriment of others Boot twists the motivations of military interventions in Latin America, Asia and other parts of the world. He misses completely the inspiration fueling the expansion of the US. Boot is correct only in demonstrating that the US has only been isolationist in rhetoric (and in lacking knowledge of the outside world too). Boot fails history most outrageously when it portrays the invasion of the Philippines as a success. The North American conquest of the Philippines was accompanied by massacres, torture, and concentration camps, which in the end were ineffectual, since the US was never able to placate the armed insurrection. Resentment against the already past US occupation in these islands keeps growing as time passes. Writers like Boot are responsible for keeping average readers blinded to the real motivations and effects of the US imperialism. Jim Zwick's writings and collection of documents available on the WEB provides a persuasive dispute to Boot's imperialist and false history.
Rating: 
Summary: Great book! Enough said!
Review: This book is extremely detailed and well written. In my nine years in the Marine Corps I have always heard of the Marines conducting over 300 landings abroad. I was familiar with some, but had never really known what they were. I was amazed at how from it's inception, the United States has used military muscle to promote trade, maintain peace, gain influence or strategic position, or just simply get revenge for percieved transgressions. It was very interesting how events in the past have mirrored events in the present. This book is great for the history buff, but it reads like an action adventure book. This should be required reading for all the foriegn policy decision makers in Washington. It will remind them what made the U.S. the most powerful nation on earth and what it takes to keep her there.
Rating: 
Summary: Boot: US Military Actions Have Been Worthwhile¿Just Trust Me
Review: This book provides an interesting narrative of United States' small-scale wars. It's easy to read because it draws the reader into the story, rather than simply presenting facts. Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge of history to say whether the book's account is biased. The book's failure to explain the *reasons* for these wars is a fatal flaw. It really stands out because the author's thesis is that US's small wars have been worthwhile. Boot's account of these wars, however, makes them seem nothing but a tragic waste of life. Some of his arguments, such as when he says that we must accept some torture and murder of the "natives" in any military operation, seem more like sarcastic arguments against military solutions. But Boot makes them without a hint of irony. I suspect there were good reasons for these wars, but Boot does not bring them out. What were the noble justifications for using lethal force in these conflicts? What were the selfish and political motivations? How well did the wars accomplish their goals? What unforeseen costs and benefits that came from the wars? This book does not answer any of these questions. A book that answers these questions is desperately needed. Many on the left claim that US military actions are always motivated by selfish commercial interests of those with connections to the government. From my point of view, this book unintentionally supports the pacifists' claims.
Rating:
Summary: Don't listen to the in need of heavy medication Leftists
Review: This book tells the truth. It is time for an American Empire!
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: This is a book that should be read by anyone who criticises US interventions in foreign countries. The two most important points made by this book are: 1. Countries which were occupied by US forces or where the US intervened were the better for it. 2. The Powell Doctrine is a fallacy.
Rating:
Summary: Presenting A Naive Understanding of War and Politics
Review: This was a terribly disappointing book because the subject was so well chosen. But Boot's narrative is mostly story telling drawn from contemporary accounts with a much too credulous approach taken to the swashbuckling tales of derring-do that nineteenth century historians were given to. It's pretty much free of any analysis - were America's small wars well chosen? Did the U.S. benefit or bring benefits to the other countries affected? What about the conflicts that America chose to sit out? One learns nothing about any of these questions. Neither is there any non-US viewpoint (it would have been helpful to hear at least a fragment of the Nicaraguan / Haitian / Filipino / Chinese perspectives).
Rating:
Summary: Vacuous story telling
Review: This was a terribly disappointing book because the subject was so well chosen. But Boot's narrative is mostly story telling drawn from contemporary accounts with a much too credulous approach taken to the swashbuckling tales of derring-do that nineteenth century historians were given to. It's pretty much free of any analysis - were America's small wars well chosen? Did the U.S. benefit or bring benefits to the other countries affected? What about the conflicts that America chose to sit out? One learns nothing about any of these questions. Neither is there any non-US viewpoint (it would have been helpful to hear at least a fragment of the Nicaraguan / Haitian / Filipino / Chinese perspectives).
Rating: 
Summary: Useful history on small wars
Review: Wars with limited objectives by limited means, or "small wars," are often left out in histories of the US, either in book form or when recalled by articles. Max Boot's book received my attention when I read his article relating Bush's 2004 election victory to that enjoyed by McKinley in 1900, during the Philippine insurrection. Like the Iraq war, the Philippine war was not decided at that time, with a guerilla enemy frustrating pacification efforts and a homeland media largely locked in a struggle to unseat the administration. I'm not going to comment on the embarassing performance by mass media here, but it is notable to see that Bush and McKinley, two Republicans, were able to keep their seats while Truman and Johnson did not. The Philippine insurrection, along with a multitude of other small wars, are covered in Boot's work in some detail. I do not know of another book that does anything similar.
The main theme of the book is that in America's history, war in some form is the rule and not the exception. The Powell doctrine represents all of the wrong lessons from Vietnam, a small war fought disasterously like a conventional war, and small wars have been largely the domain of the executive branch of the government. Overall, the book is a rather fascinating perspective of American military history and makes for very decent reading. It makes a good companion to more general histories, such as Paul Johnson's work.
I could site two (for me) shortcomings here: it would be nice to have seen more coverage of British small wars and Soviet small wars. American successes and failures could then have, say, the Afganistan invasion, Chechnya and the Falkland Islands engagements to guage against. Also, Boot leaves out the Korean War from the discussion and gives little space to the Balkan involvement of the 1990's. I realize that the Korean War was not a small war as defined here, but this study seems to provide a good place to put it in some perspective. The breakup of Yugoslavia, having occured after major media's apparent decision to cut down on international news coverage (following the Gulf War), remains a complex and confusing chapter in America's military history. What happened to the UN's peacekeeping efforts that permitted such disaster? How did the thing start, anyway? Perhaps Boot will write something more substantial about these two wars at a later time. Judging from this work, he certainly seems like the historian to do it.
Rating:
Summary: An eye opener
Review: When I grew up in the Philippines, we either got a standard, dry, abbreviated history of the U.S.-Philippine War that was really short on details regarding why the outnumbered U.S. forces succeeded as well as they did in defeating Filipino forces or a leftist tract that was big on branding the Filipino upper classes for their traitorious actions during that period. This book's chapter on that war taught me tons of fascinating military details and insights that I never got from years of studying Philippine history at school, and to think that it took an American to write about it!
Oh yeah, the rest of the book is just as good, and the author makes a great case at the end showing that the U.S. risks more future military disasters like Vietnam by ignoring the hard-earned lessons learned during the Philippine war.
Rating:
Summary: A lackluster vindication of Warhawkism by a civilian egghead
Review: ~The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power~ is warhawk historical revisionism for neoconservatives and reckless interventionists to vindicate meddlesome American foreign policy. I'm extremely contemptuous of Max Boot, the armchair general who wrote this book. Max reverently praises war for the sake of war. Boot's refusal to deal with substantive issues like security interests, strategy, and proper execution of military operations sullies this book. Instead, the ole civilian warhawk engages in war idolatry. Boot simply idolizes an American Empire, and praises war for the sake of war, as if war is an end in itself. General Robert E. Lee once said, "It's good war is so terrible, for we should become fond of it." Lee is right... If you're going to go to war, it should be for a darn good reason and fought with the intent to win and with clear-cut strategic objectives. Ironically, it is always these crusty Northeastern establishment (non-combatant) intellectuals like Max Boot that are so fond and affectionate of war.
Anyway, Boot offers a piercing tongue in criticizing the Powell Doctrine, enunciated by Gen. Colin Powell. As Powell once affirmed, "halfhearted warfare for half-baked reasons that the American people could not understand or support" should frankly be avoided. Boot, however, seems to idolize "half-baked warfare," pointing to what he sees as a history of war with no well-defined strategic objectives or visible U.S. national security interest. Boot obviously rejoices at our successful counter-insurgencies, but never seems to learn anything from overseas adventures that didn't go so well. More often than not the bungled operations are those that lacked clear objectives or a visible exit strategy. Moreover, the Powell Doctrine held that there should be a clear risk to U.S. national security interests before military force should be deployed. The force deployed should be massive and overwhelm the threat. Likewise, the operation should have public support, well-defined objectives, and a clear cut exit strategy. Powell and the Pentagon brass for one learned some lessons from Vietnam, Max Boot did not. Also, Boot is extremely cynical that the public doesn't like to see high casualties. Boot finds it absurd that we premise operations with minimal casualties in mind. Boot seems to think willingly utilizing our soldiers as cannon fodder is a recipe for success. I guess, under Max Boot, the ole Army slogan, "Leave no man behind," might have to change to "Leave lots of men behind." For this reason alone, I'm extremely contemptuous of this smug civilian military expert who has never brandished arms in service to his country while gleefully rejoicing at war.
No doubt, America has had some successful counter-insurgency campaigns, and many endeavors were anything but strategic blunders. Nonetheless, Boot never takes issues with Pyrrhic victories (i.e. victories won at too great of a cost) or defeats, so he is NOT apt to glean any lessons from history, only to declare that war is the American way and we should pursue it for the sake of war. War is an end in itself for the author. What non-sense? Boot is certainly not another Carl von Clausewitz. He reasons a good skirmish every four to five years is requisite for the ole fictitious Empire since he tends to think of "the American mission" as being analagous to that of the Roman Empire. His conclusions are deeply flawed, and of course, he appeals to naive warhawks who love war, but never try to understand history, tactics, or strategy. This is just a lame effort to vindicate reckless intervention abroad while stretching America's military to the breaking point. I don't purport to be an expert on the subject, but people that approach military science with an idolatrous love of war are usually those that make the most horrible historians, strategists and policymakers. Typically, they're usually civilians who have never joined the military much less seen combat. Their experience with war is limited mostly to sterile two-dimensional encounters with pictures in history books and their combat wounds come from paper cuts. So, give Boot the Order of the Paper Tiger medal and a two-star rating!
|
