What would John Quincy Adams do?

In September 2021, America lost a great mind. In a world of conformity on both the left and right, Angelo Codevilla’s life and work stands out. Codevilla’s mastery of history, politics, religion, and foreign policy appears in every paragraph on every page of his posthumously published book, America’s Rise and Fall among Nations: Lessons in Statecraft from John Quincy Adams.

Codevilla’s book asks “what would John Quincy Adams do” to create an America first foreign policy. John Quincy Adams was the sixth U.S. president and son of the second president, John Adams. He was president after America had been involved in a war for independence as well as the War of 1812.

In the early nineteenth century, there was an abundance of challenges to America’s national security. European colonial powers remained throughout the western hemisphere. These powers persistently threatened the safety of America as well as its neighbors. Thus, the foreign policy doctrine that developed under Adams was the Monroe Doctrine, which was named after America’s fifth president James Monroe. This doctrine established principles of non-interference in the western hemisphere principally Latin America. It applied to extra-hemispheric powers but was also self-applied by America to its affairs with Latin American countries too.

As a result, the foundations of the Monroe Doctrine established a foreign policy in which America minded its own business and would encourage other nations to do the same. This was the bedrock of “America first.” Codevilla asserts that Adams and the founding fathers would not even understand such a label. Of course, they would put America first. What serious country wouldn’t put their own nation’s interests first? Standby…

Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives Take Charge

After exploring the history of American foreign policy from Washington through Theodore Roosevelt, Codevilla offers an answer. He sharpens his pen to take aim at Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement, which radically changed America’s entire geopolitical framework. Codevilla makes clear that America’s entry into World War I began a sharp departure from Adams and his successors through Theodore Roosevelt. Furthermore, the Progressives began to formulate policy in terms of global interest. This amounted to spreading democracy to other nation’s whether they wanted it or not. Democracy became the catch-all for whatever Progressives thought was good. If people refused or voted against it, this was a threat to democracy. Sound familiar? Now we see where the incoherence of American foreign policy began to take shape.

While Codevilla’s criticism of Progressives was fun reading, it was also light on details. He touches the surface on Wilson’s push to establish the League of Nations, which became the precursor to the U.N. Nevertheless, perhaps others can pick up where Codevilla left off. The Wilsonian break with Adams could become a book on its own.

Describing the Progressive movement, Codevilla’s writing style is scathing. He has no remorse for the subsequent generations that have adopted the Wilsonian model. The Progressive establishment morphed into what he describes as America’s “ruling class.” Except for World War II, this ruling class has not won a war. At the same time, while World War II defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan, it did not account for the rise of the U.S.S.R. that quickly followed. As a result, Codevilla tears into this group. Clearly, he never worried about missing invitations to cocktail parties in Georgetown.

The “Ruling Class”

The quick definition of the ruling class is basically the college educated population clustered mostly on the two coasts. The ruling class is typically white-collar professionals i.e. lawyers, bankers, consultants, journalists, and what is commonly called “the laptop class.” We can also add people in academia. The ruling class considers itself elite due to its credentials from colleges and universities.

Additionally, the ruling class has also grown up around the nation’s capital and staffs the ranks of bureaucrats, lobbyists, think tankers, foundation workers, military servicemembers, intelligence personnel, contractors, and many other government functionaries. These members of the ruling class comprise what Codevilla calls the “administrative state.” The two overlap and the one thing that defines them is the uniformity of their education, which is typically Ivy League or Ivy League adjacent. Again, the credentials matter because it gets into the elites conception of themselves as being experts.

Codevilla’s contempt is rooted in the fact that the members of the ruling class believe that they have the expertise to run the country, yet they consistently fail in doing so. Instead, he sees them as self-serving. They are interested in perpetuating their own power and not acting in the best interest of the American people.

While Codevilla is broad in his denunciation of the ruling class, his depth of knowledge and sweeping analysis makes the reader think that he must know what he is talking about. To the frustration of his critics, he has the added benefit of being right. He has been the first to point out and even predict the myriad of foreign policy failures over several decades. Ironically, he also has a lot of credentials himself and an impressive resume in the military, foreign service, government and academia. Perhaps he can be critical of the ruling class because he is, after all, coming from it.

Consistent Failure

Look no further than the disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal, America’s inability to stop Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the rise of China, and North Korea’s capability to threaten America with nuclear weapons. Add in the failed wars from Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War (tactical success, strategic failure), Iraq, and Afghanistan, and one starts to see the pattern. There is also the rise of Iran, al-Qaeda, and ISIS.

America has lost thousands of lives and spent trillions of dollars over the last two decades in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein was once on the CIA payroll. America supported him in his war against Iran then proceeded to wage two separate wars against him. If U.S. policy seems to be sporadic and lacking in direction, that’s because it stopped being grounded in reason, practicability, and a relentless focus on America’s national interests. With all of these issues, Codevilla continually points the finger at American elites for their poor statecraft. Adams would not be pleased.

In a League of His own

Reading Codevilla is exhilarating. It also leaves the reader with a sense of melancholy. This feeling comes from the fact that it is hard to see things getting better. The ruling class is very much empowered and arrogant. One senses that Codevilla is probably a supporter of President Trump. If he did vote for Trump, he doesn’t fawn over him or withhold points of criticism. Codevilla is not wedded to any one party or politician. At least not any living politician. In this book, he calls balls and strikes. Furthermore, he always returns to the question of how Adams would handle current issues.

Adams on Ukraine and Russia

So how would Adams handle the war on terror, Russia-Ukraine, the People’s Republic of China, and other issues of the day. Codevilla offers his thoughts on all of these and more.

Looking specifically at Russia and Ukraine, Codevilla believes that Adams would say that America has no business being involved in the manner that the U.S. is currently involved. He writes, “Russia is no more willing to conquer Europe than it is able.” Seems true after their inability to conquer just Ukraine.

On Ukraine, he says, “Its independence is very much a U.S. interest, but it is beyond our capacity to secure.” Also proven to be true. However, critics would say that our financial support and imposition of sanctions on Russia has shown (at least for now) that the U.S. can help preserve Ukraine’s independence.

On Russia, he writes that John Quincy Adams “would know and sincerely convey to Russia that [Ukraine’s] independence depends on themselves, and that he regard it as counterproductive to try making them into American pawns or even to give the impression that they may be.” American statesmen clearly missed the boat on that latter part.

Finally, Codevilla concludes, “Nothing would be geopolitically clearer to Adams than that natural policy for both America and Russia is not to go looking for opportunities to get in each other’s way.” Reading this analysis is much more satisfying than the mainstream hysterics of “Putin is Hitler!” It all seems too reasonable and almost scary in its simplicity.

Moreover, Codevilla wrote this prior to Russia’s invasion. If U.S. politicians had been familiar with Adams, perhaps they could have used practical diplomacy to prevent war. They certainly are not using any diplomacy in an effort to end it.

America First statecraft

What are the principles of America first statecraft?

Codevilla believes that these principles were used by presidents from Washington to Teddy Roosevelt. He writes, “There is nothing new or sophisticated about them. They are on the homey level of ‘early to bed, early to rise,’ ‘don’t get into debt,’ ‘eat your veggies,’ and so forth. They boil down to minding our own business and minding it well.”

Can it be that simple? Don’t we need a degree from the Harvard Kennedy School or Georgetown School of Foreign Service? Hardly. In fact, Codevilla would probably say the opposite is true.

Codevilla also thinks that reliance on intelligence from the CIA has been a consistent mistake. He is extremely critical of the CIA overall. His blunt assessment is the unquestioned belief that the CIA possesses some unique insight that overrides common sense and prudential judgment. After all, the CIA has taken a lot of actions independent of the will of the American people and against good statecraft. These actions have frequently come back to hurt America.

Experts without expertise

His disdain for the the CIA is also part of his ruling class critique. It boils down to having a plethora of experts with no expertise. It’s not just in foreign policy, intelligence or the military either. We can see this everywhere in our society.

How is it that we have more mental health experts and therapists, yet the rates of anxiety, depression, and suicide continue to rise? Could it be that mental health like foreign policy has been complicated by over credentialed elites? Once upon a time the diagnosis for a kid’s “mental health issues” would also be “on the homey level”: Go outside, play with your friends, do physical activity, go to church, and listen to your parents. Now a mental health expert with a PhD will fill out a prescription drug and listen to the kid mope while the parents pony up a couple hundred bucks an hour. After all, the parents aren’t mental health experts!

Whether it is a mental health “professional” or a CIA analyst, they are probably smart and went to a lot of fancy schools. Just because they are smart doesn’t mean they are wise. Furthermore, their cures are usually worse than the disease. However, you can’t question them because you are not an expert like they are. So you and your kids can take happy pills and let the CIA figure out new ways to funnel money to third world dictators. You didn’t vote on that policy, but experts say its in our best interest.

Conclusion

We have lost Angelo Codevilla too soon. Thankfully, we have his writing to continue injecting sanity into the madness. America’s Rise and Fall among Nations will be relevant for many years.

To the enduring question of can foreign policy be as simple as John Quincy Adams makes it appear? Yes and no. Issues are very complicated with multiple second and third order considerations. Foreign policy will always be messy and difficult to figure out. It will take a lot of work. No, foreign policy is not simple.

But, yes, in that John Quincy Adams and the founders followed a remarkably simple set of principles. The model doesn’t require AI-powered software. So here is the algorithm. Start with minding one’s own business and minding it well as the general operating system. Within the code, determine the nation’s interests and what issues do and don’t affect those interests. Then consider how practically these interests can be enforced and defended. Run the code with an enduring sense of honor and also prudence. This is how John Quincy Adams would approach statecraft in the 21st Century. American leaders should wisely follow Adams’ lead. Codevilla’s book will help them start.

Find the Book at Encounter Books here.

Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II

By Sean McMeekin

Great history books are revelatory. This characteristic makes them hard to put down. Often the revelation comes from new facts and historical data that the author discovers through lengthy research. It is becoming harder to find such works. This is not because there is a lack of history to discover. The job takes hard work and years of dedication. Too much of the current historical literature is not revealing anything new. It is rather a reinterpretation of what is already known in narrative form. This tells the reader less about the history and more about how the historian wants us to understand the history. None of this is the case in Stalin’s War.

Dr. Sean McMeekin’s book, Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II, is an ambitious and provocative historical account. The author’s attention to detail and in-depth research provides a trove of new information about Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. As a result, it is the rediscovery of forgotten historical events that drives the core of Dr. McMeekin’s thesis. In the case of the Soviet Union, the fact that historians like Dr. McMeekin are unearthing new facts nearly 70 years after the death of Stalin reinforces the central premise of the book. That is the Soviet Union under Stalin was a duplicitous and immoral regime that played geopolitical chess in pursuit of worldwide communist revolution. Furthermore, they were as depraved as the Nazis and equally culpable in the start and perpetuation of World War II.

The tragedy of this history is that Churchill and Roosevelt never grasped that the Soviets were as morally corrupt as the Nazis. This fact appears most notably in the personal meetings between Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill. Stalin’s War sheds light on the ineptitude of Roosevelt in dealing with his Soviet counterpart. Dr. McMeekin illustrates that Roosevelt had a deep desire to be liked if not loved by the communist dictator. If we take a schoolyard analogy, think of a bully on the playground. Stalin would be that bully. Then consider another weaker kid that wants the bully to like him. Unfortunately, this kid would be Roosevelt. Typically, the schoolyard bully would want to beat up the weaker kid. But the weaker kid has an ace to play. His parents are rich and every day he brings shiny new toys to school. To get the bully to like him, the weaker rich kid lets the bully “borrow” his shiny new toys. But the bully doesn’t like him. In fact, the bully has contempt for the rich kid with the shiny new toys. The only reason the bully doesn’t beat him up is because he might lose access to the shiny new toys.

What were the shiny new toys that Roosevelt had to offer? They came in the form of Lend-Lease aid, and they were much more destructive and expensive than the typical Hot Wheels. Dr. McMeekin runs through the numbers in terms of tanks, planes, weapons, oil, steel, aluminum, and even butter. All of these were offered to the Stalin to “borrow.” The purpose behind the aid was to help the Soviet Union on the eastern front after Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarossa. Thus, Roosevelt’s intentions were noble. But the size and scope of the aid was incredible costing the United States over $1 trillion in today’s dollars. Even more telling is that the aid was delivered with no strings attached. There was never any guarantee that the USSR would pay it back. And, of course, they never did. Meanwhile, Britain paid off its debt over the course of 61 years with a final payment in December 2006.

Dr. McMeekin goes into great detail about the conferences at Tehran, Potsdam, and Yalta when Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met. One would think that Roosevelt and Churchill would have presented a united front against Stalin. But it wasn’t so. In fact, there were many times in which Churchill was on his own. In one case, Stalin felt brazen enough to make fun of Churchill to his face. Churchill was like the cool, athletic kid in the schoolyard. The bully would like to beat him up, but knows that its going to be a tough, bloody fight. Besides there are plenty of weaker kids to pick on and a rival bully to worry about. Of course, the rival bully was Nazi Germany.

Germany’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 would not have happened without Stalin. The two bullies in the European schoolyard, the Nazis and the Soviets, colluded together. They signed a non-aggression pact called the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. That pact was signed on August 23, 1939. It is named after each country’s foreign affairs minister, Ribbentrop for the Nazis, and Molotov for the Soviets. Dr. McMeekin explains that this pact should give Stalin as much culpability for starting World War II as Hitler. While the Nazis fired the first shot, the Soviets were not far behind them. Indeed, Soviet forces invaded Poland on September 17, 1939. Poland was the dividing line in the European sandbox. One bully struck from the west (Nazi Germany) and the other bully struck from the east (the USSR). They both decided to respect each other’s half of the sandbox initially.

The Soviet invasion of Poland was the opening salvo in Stalin’s war. It was quickly followed by the invasion and subjugation of the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The USSR also invaded Finland and part of Romania. The invasion of Finland was less successful than the others. Dr. McMeekin points out that the USSR invaded six countries after collaborating with the Nazis. But the western powers did not see Stalin’s belligerence in the same way that they saw Hitler’s. Dr. McMeekin explores the many reasons why this was the case. One of the primary reasons is that the USSR was less public about their intentions than the Nazis.

The Soviets and the Nazis were equally immoral, but ideologically opposed. Long-term they were foes and likely to go to war. So, what was Stalin’s purpose in collaborating with Hitler? First, he was gambling that the western Allied powers would enter the war and fight against Nazi Germany. That gamble paid off. From Stalin’s point of view the Anglo-American allies and the Nazis were no different. They were all part of a global capitalist system and were, therefore, enemies of communism. The USSR was committed to destroying them for the sake of communist revolution. However, Stalin wagered that it was better if they destroyed each other first and then the USSR could mop up the pieces. What Stalin miscalculated was how quickly Nazi Germany would be able to conquer western Europe through their infamous blitzkrieg. Unlike World War I, there was no western front. Hitler’s war machine was much more formidable and had learned from the tactical and operational failures of the first world war. As a result, Stalin faced the prospect of a stronger and more aggressive Germany that could soon turn its sights on the USSR, which, eventually, it did.

What Britain and the United States never seemed to understand was that Stalin was not simply a nationalist committed to defending the borders of Mother Russia from Nazi aggression. On the contrary, Stalin was a true ideologue and as committed to communist revolution as Hitler was to German lebensraum. The Allies never took seriously Stalin’s global ambitions. Soviet conquest and Nazi conquest were equally brutal. Millions of people of different races and nationalities suffered the same harsh fate under the Soviets that Jews suffered under the Nazis. The Soviets executed political prisoners and sent many to gulags. In Poland, the Soviets were the perpetrators of the infamous Katyn massacre. Despite the USSR’s consistent denial (until 1990), Stalin personally approved the massacre of over 20,000 Polish officers and POWs in the spring of 1940. When the Soviets invaded Germany in 1945, they raped, pillaged, and engaged in random acts of violence. Stalin sanctioned rape. Additionally, Soviet soldiers killed refugee women and children and, in some cases, ran over by tanks. They looted and burned homes. In fact, Soviet brutality extended to their own people. Dr. McMeekin explains that Soviet POWs in American custody often attempted suicide to avoid involuntary repatriation to the USSR. The monstrosity that was Stalin’s Soviet Union was more than apparent by the time V-E Day arrived on May 9, 1945.

The treatment of conquered people illustrates the stark moral contrast between the western powers and the Soviet Union. There is a reason that refugees fled west and continued to do so until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. In 1983, when President Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire”, he was not wrong. The Soviet Union was rotten to the core just like the Nazis. It is a shame that the western powers either did not realize this fact, ignored it, or perhaps were duped by the many Soviet infiltrators that populated high ranking positions in the U.S. government. If the western powers had realized this fact, then perhaps the only aid they would have offered Stalin would have been indirect by pouring American money and resources into the liberation of western Europe. If American military power had been solely dedicated to freeing France and defeating Germany than the western Allies could have done the latter without the Red Army storming into Berlin. Furthermore, Stalin would not have received the military equipment, supplies, and technology that would enable the Soviet regime to subjugate the eastern European nations that fell behind the Iron Curtain. History is full of unknowns. Stalin’s War uncovers a lot of previous unknowns. In doing so, it raises a lot more “what ifs.”

Additional Reading and Resources:

Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II

Britain pays off World War II debt in 2006: Link

The Katyn Massacre 1940: A History of Crime

Ronald Reagan’s great speeches:

“Evil Empire” speech 3/8/1983 and the famous speech at the Brandenburg gate in West Berlin 6/12/1987

How Wars End Podcast interview

Name the only European country that has formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan? That is a good nugget of trivia. Perhaps when bars re-open and people socialize again, it will be a good one to keep in reserves. Answer: The Vatican.

How do I know this? I picked up a fascinating, yet sometimes scary book by Ian Easton on the topic of Taiwan. More specifically, the capability of Taiwan to defend itself against a Chinese invasion. The book is appropriately named The Chinese Invasion Threat.

The level of detail is remarkable. Mr. Easton has done his homework. He has a strong grasp of history and current events. He draws on countless hours of research and thousands of pages of sources. He has studied the People’s Liberation Army doctrine to the extent of its availability to gain insight into what he declares is the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) long-term objective to invade, control, dominate, and rule Taiwan.

The history begins with the Chinese Civil War between the Communists under Mao Zedong and and the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek. The Nationalists lost and were forced from the mainland to a string of islands off the coast with the largest one being the island of current day Taiwan (then Formosa). Over the years, the Chinese Communists sought to conquer Taiwan. However, they were consistently deterred by the difficulty of the mission, and America’s willingness to intervene. 

It should be noted that Taiwan and the Taiwanese consider themselves the Republic of China aka “ROC.” They believe that they are the rightful Chinese government. Although they have abandoned their claim to the Chinese mainland.

Over the years, Taiwan has built up defenses and lived with the constant threat of an invasion. What we learn from Mr. Easton’s book is how difficult an invasion would be for the PRC. Indeed, the conditions would have to be just right. Furthermore, the mobilization and logistics would be hard for the Chinese to conceal. Mr. Easton spells out these complexities in careful detail.

Additionally, the weather would have to cooperate as the Taiwan Straight is perilous for ships to cross. It is often impassable for amphibious operations. The Taiwanese terrain and beaches present many other difficulties. Taiwan is mostly mountainous, and the mountain ranges are extremely tall and treacherous for any military movement. Finally, the manmade features built on Taiwan are all heavily reinforced with steel and concrete. Taiwan often gets hit with typhoons and the structures have been built to withstand the onslaught of nature. Thus, the island is well defended with natural and manmade obstacles.

In the big picture, it is ironic and sad that Taiwan does not have diplomatic recognition by the rest of the world. It is a democracy with a free society. It is also the United States’ 10th largest trading partner. Its economy is highly technical as it makes many electronic components including chips for Apple iPhones. Nevertheless, U.S. relations with Taiwan evolved and were solidified in the 1978 Taiwan Relations Act under President Jimmy Carter. In this relationship, America supports Taiwan with military equipment and expertise. It also supports Taiwan with an implicit guarantee of military protection. However, there are no formal diplomatic relations.

Mr. Easton’s book is a must read especially for U.S. Marines. As the Marines look to the Indo-Pacific region for current and future operations, this book is worth studying. Mr. Easton describes the flashpoint between China and Taiwan as one of the most consequential national security issues that America faces. The strategic importance of Taiwan cannot be understated. It is true that while China is militarily aggressive, they are waging war on many fronts. These fronts include cyber, political disinformation, economic pressure, and espionage.

Finally, while Mr. Easton published his book in 2017, it is even more relevant in 2021. The year 2020 saw an increased amount of PLA aggression against Taiwan. The PLA continues to push the boundaries and test the Taiwanese. Thus, it is crucial to study and know what is coming. Mr. Easton’s book is a strong warning. The question is will America’s national security decision makers heed this warning in time to stop the Chinese invasion?

Check out the book-

The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan’s Defense and American Strategy in Asia

Also check out the podcast interview. 

The following is a book review of The Fifth Domain: Defending Our Country, Our Companies, and Ourselves in the Age of Cyber Threats by Richard A. Clarke and Robert Knake

After reading this book, I understand that cyber-attacks can shut down hospitals, electric grids, and create a trillion dollars in damage to the world economy. These things are happening all of the time. The equivalent of World War III is raging on the internet while people sit on the couch with a bowl of Fruit Loops streaming Netflix. So naturally, during internet World War III, I read this book to answer some important questions. The most important question isn’t where to dig a fighting position with my entrenching tool and hold the line with an M16. That is because the fifth domain is an ethereal, unseen place in the clouds. In fact, unlike the other four domains- land, air, sea, and space- this is World War III in the cloud! So the most important question of internet World War III…

Is a Russian agent watching me watch Netflix? 

Serious question. I know that right now thousands of cyberattacks are taking place on my bank, and that it could mean all my life savings could be stolen. That would be bad for sure. But, if I really am being watched right now during Season 3 of Stranger Things, then we have a big problem. Oh, and I want to know if Mark Zuckerberg is listening to my conversations and then selling me ads on Facebook. If so, then I am totally deactivating my Facebook account in protest… for a day.

The Fifth Domain was a fun read. I like books that I can read and remember the material. Because when I remember the material, I sound smarter than I actually am. After all, that is the goal of reading. Some people read and then they say, “Check out such and such book, it was so great.” My response, “What is it about?” Cue the awkward pause. “Well, its about this thing… that um… ugh…” Yikes!

It’s embarrassing to read a “great” book and then not remember anything.

The Fifth Domain won’t be like that. The only thing that would be hard to remember is the weird names of the cyber attacks. But, guess what! I am going to put some of the major ones here, and some information about what happened. If you memorize a few of these, you’ll be set. I mean you will be the darling of cocktail party conversation. Also, if you talk about Petya and WannaCry on that first Tinder date, forget it! He or she will call you back immediately. You’re welcome!

Here are some prominent cyberattacks:

2010: Stuxnet- U.S. attacks Iran

Full disclosure: This one is my favorite because it came from the good ole U.S.A. We let freedom ring in the form of a piece of malware that infected and disrupted Iranian nuclear centrifuges at their Natanz facilities. Go America!

2012: Iran Strikes Back

This one isn’t as cool. In fact, if you were in the Navy and Marine Corps at that time using an NMCI computer, then some Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) agent probably knows your “Pros and Cons.” They also know if you were on a meal plan or not. If you’re a 2nd Lieutenant, then the IRGC probably read all the crazy training plans, that your CO never approved. The IRGC probably stole ORMs to copy and paste for their own training plans… bastards!  

2015: Chinese hackers and U.S. cheaters

This was the year that the Chinese stole 21.5 million records from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). If you worked for the government around this time, someone in China probably has your social security number. Also, if you worked for the government and also had an Ashley Madison profile then 2015 was a double whammy. Not only did the Chinese take your social security number, but your spouse found out you were cheating. Ouch!

2016: The DNC gets hacked

The Russians are at it. This is the year the DNC e-mails were hacked and released by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks for all the world to see. Sorry Bernie supporters, but the mainstream Democrats really weren’t feeling the Bern. The authors do spend a good portion of the book talking about hacking to meddle in U.S. elections. It is worth paying attention to as we come on another election year in 2020.

2017: WannaCry (no, but I will laugh at this funny hacker name)

This was a busy year for the cyber armies. Things kicked off with WannaCry, and people started hearing about Bitcoin. Why? The hackers exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft software that allowed them to break in to people’s computers and encrypt them. They would then demand payment in Bitcoin to unlock them. This is also called a ransomware attack. This attack is important because the U.S. blamed North Korea. Therefore, this was a high-profile case of state sponsored cyber war.

June 2017: Petya attack

This was another attack in the same realm as WannaCry. However, this one involved the target being Ukraine. Also, the suspected perpetrators are Russian. In this case, Microsoft vulnerabilities were also exploited, and Bitcoin was demanded. This attack caused global ramifications as it affected many businesses and industries around the world. The attack cost the world economy many billions of dollars.

Right Now

The Chinese. Every day. All the time. The Chinese are just typing away as we speak trying to hack anything and everything.

2020: New Decade, new strategy?

Finally, in 2020, we had some recent news that the NSA alerted Microsoft to a vulnerability in some of their software. The vulnerability made it possible for hackers to exploit. This was a newsworthy event. Instead of keeping the information secret to develop their own cyber capabilities, the NSA decided to work with Microsoft.

If there is one major thematic takeaway from the book, it is that the authors believe in a “strong defense” in the cyber realm. Also, it is important for corporations and the government to work together on cyber defense. Companies cannot look to the government for solutions. It is a problem that is beyond the reach of one entity. Perhaps that is why the recent news of the NSA working with Microsoft is so important. There is a shifting strategy in which the government and companies are recognizing the need to collaborate to solve problems in the fifth domain.

After reading the book, I looked at a cyber security company called CrowdStrike. The book mentions CrowdStrike many times. It is a company that went public on the NASDAQ in 2019. It sounds like an important company with a smart founder and CEO. Maybe I will buy some shares. If the companies stock price goes up, then my purchase of The Fifth Domain will have been worth it many times over. Not only will I have more money for the cyber criminals to steal, but I’ll also have two factor-authentication to protect it. Who said internet World War III couldn’t be profitable? And now I have extra money to comfortably renew that Netflix subscription. Just don’t ask me for my password!   

Check out the book and make your own killing in cyber stocks… The Fifth Domain: Defending Our Country, Our Companies, and Ourselves in the Age of Cyber Threats

“It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”

– Thucydides

Is America destined for war with China?

Dr. Graham Allison poses the question in the subtitle of a book called Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap?. If you’re like me and you’re asking what the heck is a “Thucydides’s Trap”, then I am sure you’re not alone.

Thucydides is the godfather of history. He’s kind of a big deal. He wrote about the Peloponnesian War that took place between Athens and Sparta in the Fifth century BCE i.e. a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Most people probably know more details about the last season of Game of Thrones than Athens and Sparta. Even though the Spartans were super badass, I don’t think Thucydides mentioned anything about dragons. But while George R.R. Martin is a good writer, he is not the father of history. Thucydides will take that title because he wrote about the conflict and helped provide the framework for some theories of power and politics such as realpolitik. So for all political science students, you’re freakin’ welcome!

In his “Melian Dialogue” Thucydides wrote the classic line, “In the real world, the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.” Boom! I’d like to see the HBO writers pull that one off. In one sentence, Thucydides gave military historians intellectual red meat to devour for years.

Thucydides’s Trap Thesis

At the core of Dr. Allison’s book is the theory that the U.S. and China are destined for the same fate as the Athenians and the Spartans. The Spartans were threatened by the rise of Athens. As a result of distrust and diplomatic breakdowns, the two nations eventually went to war.

In the modern sense, the U.S. is the entrenched power (i.e. the badass Spartans) and China is the rising power (i.e. the upstart Athenians). It is important to understand that he is not suggesting that the nations are similar in terms of politics or culture. After all, Athens was a democracy. On the other hand, China surveils its citizens, blocks their Internet access, and slaps them with Uber-style social ratings. Meanwhile, Sparta was a warrior culture where mothers told their sons, “Come back with your shield or on it.” I guess the Spartans never heard of safe spaces. American kids are given cell phones and anxiety pills, and mothers tell them not to sit too close to the screen playing video games. Kind of different there…

What makes war inevitable?

Economic Rise

“Since the Great Recession, 40 percent of all the growth around the world has occurred in just one country: China.”

– Dr. Graham Allison

China’s economic rise over the last thirty years has been incredible. In fact, it has averaged at least 10 percent a year since 1981. For whatever criticism exists about their style of government and economy, they have succeeded in “lifting more than half a billion people out of extreme poverty.” Additionally, China’s middle class and consumer economy is beginning to show strength. They are spending boatloads (a quantifiable # btw) of money on research and education in areas of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math).   

Additionally, they have more room to grow. Dr. Allison cites the productivity gap between American and Chinese workers. American workers are currently four times as productive as Chinese workers. However, if China can close the gap over the next ten years then China’s economy will become four times the size of America’s. Sounds like America needs to send Chinese laborers X-Boxes, potato chips, soda, and La-Z-Boy sofas ASAP.

Xi Jinping: Is he China’s Theodore Roosevelt?

The book contains an interesting look at President Theodore Roosevelt. President Roosevelt had a clear vision for American expansion, power, and dominance. He had grandiose ideas for America’s economic and military might not only in the Western Hemisphere but abroad. More importantly, he helped America become a world power.

Thus, Dr. Allison wants the reader to ask, “What if China had a Theodore Roosevelt of its own?” What would that leader be like?

Xi Jinping doesn’t look like a Rough Rider charging across the badlands on a horse shooting pistols with a cowboy hat, but let’s not underestimate people. The book points out that the current Chinese leader has a vision of Chinese greatness and supremacy. He may not be charging San Juan Hill, but the dude thinks that China has something akin to their own manifest destiny. He’s smart patient, and powerful. He’s developed a strong inner circle and consolidated Chinese politics under the Communist Party.

What is his foreign policy idea?

The Chinese World Order

The chapter about China valuing hierarchy in international affairs is important. Instead of a rules-based international order, they want all other nations to bow and stand in awe of the great Chinese civilization. It seems like it might be hard to play nice with others when you want them to kiss your feet. Just saying… This leads us to the next issue:

Clash of Civilizations

Samuel Huntington wrote a book called The Clash of Civilizations. The thesis is that in the post-Cold War era, conflicts are going to become less ideological and more cultural. This idea was controversial in the 1990s so I can’t imagine people are any less offended by it today. But Dr. Allison seems to think it is highly relevant.

The book suggests that around 1900 when America became a world power, the English basically said, “We know you guys are cool.” Same language. Same general political system. Same religion. Etc… There were enough similarities for the British to let it go without too much of a fight.

This decision worked in Britain’s favor. During World War I, the Brits needed America’s back, and we helped. When World War II kicked off, they wanted America in the fight, and we were all in. From there, a “special relationship” developed that has sustained the post-war and modern-day alliance between the U.S. and Britain.

Could something similar happen between the U.S. and China? 

Again, the author returns to some of the political and cultural differences. It’s not that it can’t happen. However, it seems less likely. Furthermore, the U.S. has made overtures to the Chinese and tried to include them in the U.S. version of world order with varying degrees of success.

To show just how unlikely it is for the two nations to become strong allies, Dr. Allison suggests that it would take an Alien invasion from outer space. Sound insane? Well, there is a historical precedent for this. Apparently, President Ronald Reagan suggested to Mikhail Gorbachev that if little martian men from Mars attacked Earth, the two nations would become fast friends.

Pending the arrival of any non-Russian little green men, Dr. Allison’s point is that there are major issues facing humankind that could cause the U.S. and China to set aside their differences and work together. Among them are climate change and threats of terrorism. The point is that if the two world powers can find a common enemy like space invaders or global warming then in theory tensions should ease.

Let’s try Strategy 101

The authors call to action is a tough one. He is suggesting that American politics become less polarized and that politicians start thinking long-term. Cue the laugh track…

Have you caught your breath yet? His point is a bit somber here. He thinks that American political leaders need to take strategy seriously, but probably won’t. Nevertheless, that is the solution.

The reality is that China does think in terms of generations and not election cycles. If the U.S. could start projecting poll numbers from our great-great-yet to be born grandkids then maybe that’s our best shot. We’ll see. My guess is that Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos will be living on Mars by then. Of course, then they can raise armies to invade earth. In turn, the earth will have its alien invaders to bring the U.S. and China together and avert war just in the nick of time. And now you know why SpaceX really exists…

Conclusion

As the U.S. and Chinese trade negotiations remain ongoing, as protests break out in Hong Kong, and while China continues to build artificial islands in the South China Sea, this book becomes more relevant each day. It combines my favorite qualities of history books- relevant information, interesting facts for cocktail parties, cool statistics, and most importantly, not too long!      

It is hard to read On Desperate Ground, and not gain an immediate appreciation for whatever is happening in your life. The old adage things can always be worse comes to mind. If your buddy says , “I’m having a bad day. I was fired from work, and my girlfriend dumped me.” Hand him a copy of this book. There is not much that compares to the harrowing experience of the First Marine Division and the men who fought in North Korea from November through December of 1950. On Desperate Ground: The Marines at The Reservoir, the Korean War’s Greatest Battle is a page turning, damned good book that will end up on many reading lists very soon.

In my case, I listened via Audible. Not once, but twice! The narrative was exceptional. I liked listening in the morning while at the gym. The book was a shot of motivation like no triple espresso could compare. I was revved up to run harder and lift more listening to the courageous actions of America’s military members who fought in the brutal cold and crushing terrain.

Background

The author, Hampton Sides, has written a concise, well-paced narrative that puts the reader firmly in the heart of the action. Furthermore, he blends a boots on the ground perspective with the strategic, geopolitical backdrop. From a historical point of view, the forces that led to Americans fighting in North Korea were a combination of poor intelligence, hubris on the part of General Douglas MacArthur, and an underestimation of Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong’s willingness to deploy troops. The Chinese leader preemptively and covertly moved his troops south of the Yalu River as American and Allied forces moved past the 38th Parallel separating North and South Korea.

There are countless examples of good and bad leadership in this book. The First Marine Division Commanding Officer, General Oliver P. Smith is chief among the good ones. On the other hand, Mr. Sides does not paint a flattering picture of either General MacArthur or General Ned Almond. General Almond commanded the U.S. X Corps. Additionally, Mr. Sides tells stories of other Marine heroes such such as Captain William Barber of Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, and Lieutenant Chew-Een Lee from 1st Battalion, 7th Marines.

Human Factors

On Desperate Ground brings out the brutality of warfare. If you read this as a bedtime story to your kiddies, one of two things will happen. You’ll either scar them for life or they will grow up to be meat-eating, Marine Corps machine gunners looking to get some everyday! One of the scenes that captures the gruesomeness occurs on a beach with landmines. North Korean soldiers planted them there. The Allied forces took the beach back. When they did, Republic of Korea (ROK) soldiers lined up the captive North Korean soldiers shoulder to shoulder and walked them forward to clear the beach. As the mines went off, they had the prisoners fill in the gaps as the others went up in a plume of red mist and scattered limbs.

Its hard to imagine the carnage of using stacks of bodies for cover. But, the Marines did it when they had to. During the breakout, Chinese bodies were used to build a bridge. I had to listen to this part again because it seemed so unreal.

Also, Mr. Sides book overlaps with other classics such as The Last Stand of Fox Company: A True Story of U.S. Marines in Combat by Bob Drury and Tom Clavin. On Desperate Ground retells the battle of Fox Hill. Mr. Sides does an equally fine job bringing out the heroism of the Marines in Fox Company. Hordes of Chinese soldiers attacked them at night as they fought in sub-zero temperatures. However, being led by Medal of Honor recipient Captain Bill Barber, the Marines of Fox Company never gave up. They were tough, resilient, and endured.

These Marines deserve to have their story told over and over again. They are the legends that make the Marine Corps what it is. Today’s Devil Dogs should read it before hitting the rack and wishing Chesty goodnight with a K-bar under their pillow!

In writing this swift reading epic, Mr. Sides did his homework. He used many resources, books, and letters. Unfortunately, the Korean War has been dubbed “the Forgotten War.” This is unfortunate considering how many Americans fought and died there. Ultimately, the Korean War veterans made sure that the South didn’t fall into the hands of the North. At the end, Mr. Sides notes that millions of South Koreans today can trace their lineage to family members that escaped the North. These are the fortunate ones. They live in a country that is starkly different and much better than their neighbors to the North. The First Marines and other American veterans helped make this possible.

“Retreat! Hell!”

“Marines” and “retreat” don’t pair well together in a sentence. But, the Battle of Chosin is one of the greatest tactical “withdrawals” in history. In typical Marine fashion, Marine leaders put a spin on things to add levity. When asked about the tactical retreat, General Smith replied, “Retreat! Hell! We’re just advancing in another direction.”

The Korean War produced several notable quotes. On Desperate Ground also notes when the Chinese surrounded the First Marine Regiment, the Commander, the famous “Chesty” Puller remarked, “We’ve finally found them. We’re surrounded. That simplifies things.”

When the Marines withdrew, they accomplished one of the greatest “breakouts” in history. Through the piercing cold, ice, and overwhelming enemy odds, the Marines were able to escape destruction. Chinese bodies piled up, and the Marines took many casualties. The F4U Corsairs from First Marine Air Wing rained a hail of ordnance to include napalm on the enemy to aid the Marine withdrawal.

Conclusion

In the end, Allied forces suffered nearly 18,000 casualties. By some estimates, the Chinese lost nearly double that figure if not more. The Battle of the Chosin Reservoir was a chaotic mess of violence and disorder. Mr. Sides book wades through the madness of these events. The reader feels the disorientation because Mr. Sides writing about it is so precise. In the end, Americans can be proud of what the Korean War veterans were able to endure and accomplish. The Marines can be rightly proud of this desperate and legendary moment in their Corps’ history. Mr. Sides has added another noble chapter to Marine Corps lore. Furthermore, he has helped give the veterans of this war proper recognition and the respect they deserve. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten.

Further Books and Reading

Hampton Sides website: www.hamptonsides.com 

This Kind of War: The Classic Korean War History, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition (1963) by T.R. Fehrenbach

The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War (2007) by David Halberstam

Give Me Tomorrow: The Korean War’s Greatest Untold Story–The Epic Stand of the Marines of George Company (2010) by Patrick K. O’Donnell 

I can still remember the exact moment when I heard the news that American Special Forces killed the world’s most notorious terrorist leader in a raid that took place deep inside Pakistan. It was a Sunday night, and I was sitting in a barracks room in Quantico, Virginia. I remember word spreading rapidly around base as President Obama prepared to make the announcement that Osama bin Laden had been killed by an elite team of Navy SEALs. I received a phone call from my family at the exact moment that I was turning on my computer to read the breaking news. After President Obama’s address to the nation calling the killing of Bin Laden “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda,” I felt an overwhelming sense of elation and relief. The events of 9/11 had been a turning point in my life in which I vowed to serve my country in the armed services. Finally, the man that US intelligence had pursued for years had met swift and deadly justice. In the weeks that followed, I read and learned more about the details of the raid on the Abbottabad compound, which is located a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy. However, it wasn’t until I read David Sanger’s book, “Confront and Conceal”, that I truly grasped the strategic scope and vast complexities of President Obama’s decision to send US Special Forces to conduct an early morning raid on May 2, 2011.

In his book “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power”, David Sanger, the chief Washington correspondent for the New York Times, has written a detailed and fast-moving account of President Obama’s first term foreign policy. As I read this book nearly five years after its original publication date (2012), it is interesting to see how many of the challenges, successes, and failures of Obama’s first term have developed over the subsequent years. We now know that the killing of Osama bin Laden and the treasure trove of data taken from the raid has not brought an end to al-Qaeda nor did it prevent the spread of another equally nihilistic, radical terror group in the form of the so-called Islamic State. But, it is interesting to read Sanger’s account of the Obama administration’s handling of events in Iran, Egypt, Libya, and Syria, along with the desire to get out of the Middle East and focus on “pivoting” US strategy toward the Pacific.

Sanger is an exceptional journalist, and there is nothing about his book that seeks to either overly praise the Obama administration or sharply criticize it. President Obama comes across as a competent commander-in-chief, who is carefully analytic and at times aggressive. However, as the events of the Arab Spring show, he was also selective in his use of American force and his appetite for risk in different crises. We can only speculate what an intervention against Syria and the use of force against Bashar al-Assad might have done to stop the catastrophic bloodshed and the refugee crisis that ensued. While these historic counterfactuals are merely speculative, Sanger points out that the decision to avoid Syrian intervention as opposed to what happened in Libya was simply a matter of cost and strategic calculation. An intervention in Syria would have been too expensive and would have most likely sucked the US into another Middle Eastern quagmire. Meanwhile, any action against Syria would have been vetoed by Russia and China in a UN security council resolution. Indeed, Syria houses a Russian naval base, and Vladimir Putin’s contribution of Russian military assistance has turned the direction of the Syrian civil war in favor of the Assad government. Nonetheless, it is refreshing to read a book that analyzes the spectrum of issues to include second and third order effects of decisions and indecisions that the Obama administration made without the typical polemics that one finds on either the Obama-hating right or the Obama can do-no wrong left. For people who appreciate straightforward foreign policy analysis, this book is as good as it gets.

There are some parts of the book that pack a strong punch. The chapter entitled “Olympic Games” by itself makes the book worth purchasing. I have read WSJ reporter Jay Solomon’s book, “The Iran Wars”, because I am fascinated by the sanctions, cyber weapons, and assassinations that were used by the US and Israel to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “The Iran Wars” delves deep into the specifics of the financial war against Iran. However, David Sanger’s book examines the use of cyber weapons, and explores the covert program called “Olympic Games” with fascinating details. Sanger provides the Obama administration’s rationale to use cyber weapons based on fears that a war between Israel and Iran was imminent if Iran’s nuclear development continued. Several years after the deployment of the Stuxnet malware, the US and Iran struck a nuclear deal. Thus, one can appreciate the extent to which the diplomatic landscape changed in a few years after the assassination of Iranian scientists, the breakdown of centrifuges, and the use of economic sanctions. After all the Middle East seemed on the brink of an impending conflict between Iran and its neighbors. However, while the 2015 nuclear agreement led to a reprieve in tensions, it has not stopped the present-day escalation of conflict between Iran and the Gulf States notably Saudi Arabia in the form of a proxy war in Yemen. Furthermore, the Iranian incursion into Iraq could set the stage for a land route from Iran directly to Syria and Lebanon both of which are on Israel’s border.

As one reads “Confront and Conceal”, the narrative flows in a sequential manner based on the myriad of strategic choices that were made in Obama’s formative first four years. It begins with the desire of the administration to shift from war in Iraq to what President Obama believed should have been the focus of effort in Afghanistan. Thus, Sanger gets into the details of a troop escalation that ultimately brought the total number of American troops in Afghanistan to roughly 100,000. Additionally, under Obama, the “war on terror” was replaced by the explicit objective of defeating al-Qaeda. Sanger has a very balanced analysis of how the Obama administration danced around the legality of drone strikes and the escalation of drone attacks within Pakistan, a sovereign, nuclear power, who consistently argued that American drones killed its civilian population. From Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, it seemed like the Middle East could not have become any more complex. But, when a young Tunisian man committed an act of self-immolation as an act protest against the Tunisian government, events seemed to rapidly spiral into what is now called the “Arab Spring.” The Arab Spring saw the US depose another dictator in Muammar Gaddafi, the long-time Libyan strongman, who met his end trying to evade air strikes and rebel forces in a drainage pipe on October 20, 2011. Meanwhile in Egypt, Sanger describes the tensions that developed as internal pressures mounted against Hosni Mubarak. The US eventually broke with Mubarak, and Sanger recounts the decision that culminated in a phone conversation that President Obama had in which he told the former Egyptian President in unequivocal terms that it was time to step down.

The last part of “Confront and Conceal” deals with a rising China and the enduring threat posed by North Korea. Several years later, US and North Korean tensions have not abated. The same problems that the Obama administration faced are now on the plate of President Trump and his National Security Council. However, the situation with China seems neutral if not improved. One must give President Obama credit for the “pivot” to the Pacific to focus on the threat of a rising Chinese military power. Perhaps I am personally biased as I was directly involved in executing this strategy as I deployed to Darwin, Australia in 2015. While the pivot to the Pacific did not halt China’s economic and military development, it did reinforce the strong relationship that the US had with traditional allies in the region, and assured them that the US was committed to protecting international norms and maritime security. To this end, China may have balked in the face of America’s bold return to the region. At least for now. Sanger describes that at a minimum, US strategic commitment to the region galvanized a segment of Chinese internal politics, which sought to check the militant nationalism of its military establishment. Sanger articulates this point with an enlightening anecdote in which during a January 2011 visit to Beijing, Defense Secretary Bob Gates discovers that a Chinese military show of force with J-20 Stealth Fighter jets was meant as message to Chinese President Hu Jintao rather than himself.

“Confront and Conceal” remains an important book as we survey the landscape of foreign policy in 2017. At the time of publication, it would have been difficult to predict that parts of Syria and Iraq would be overrun by a terrorist group or that Russia would annex Crimea or that a reality television star, whose political career was born in the tasteless lie of the birther movement, would become President of the United States, but that is how things have played out. “Confront and Conceal” does foster a nostalgia for President Obama’s finer qualities as commander-in-chief namely his attention to detail, thorough analysis, and boldness for risk. At the same time, one can see in his desire to steer the US out of conflicts in the Middle East, the foundation for failures and inaction that would cause the region to simmer in the chaos we see today. Nevertheless, Sanger’s book is insightful and well-written. It will inevitably allow people to look at this short period in American foreign policy history and ask themselves “what if” for many years to come.

At the beginning of Steven Lee Myers’ book The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin, there is a quote about Putin’s love for the martial arts that seems to foreshadow the future Russian president’s foreign policy attitudes. Myers writes, “The martial arts transformed his life, giving him the means of asserting himself against larger, tougher boys.” I immediately wrote “NATO” and “the West” on the margin of the page. In many ways, this theme dominates Myers’ assessment of Vladimir Putin. In this well-written biography, the Russian president appears to have a perpetual chip on his shoulder. What emerges is the portrait of a distrustful, brooding autocrat, whose political career has been built on standing up to Russia’s external enemies both real and imagined. Although Putin initially appeared to represent a glimmer of hope that the post-Soviet Union reforms of the 1990’s would continue, these hopes quickly eroded in his first term as president. Putin’s decisions to consolidate the authoritarian power of the state, crackdown on political dissent, and ultimately violate the sovereignty of an independent nation would be influenced by many significant domestic and international events to include Russia’s war on terrorism, perpetual disagreements with western leaders, the struggles of an economy closely tied to the fluctuations of oil and gas prices, and a new ethno-nationalist Eurasian ideology.

Mr. Myers’ biography begins with Putin’s time as a KGB agent. During his KGB career, he was stationed in Dresden where he was tasked with gathering “intelligence and recruiting agents who had access to the West.” Several key points from Putin’s KGB experience relate to how the collapse of the Soviet Union made him deeply skeptical of what he saw as “mob rule” in the political turmoil that unfolded. With this experience branded into his consciousness, the author wants to show how Putin’s overall contempt for democracy is tied to his fear of mob rule.  As a bureaucrat, prime minister, and president, Putin believes fundamentally in the power of the state and prioritizes it over the will of the people. Furthermore, under Putin, Russia has become an anti-democracy that poses as a democracy. There is a “contract” between the people and the state in which the state offers security and stability, but the people must not criticize its actions in pursuit of that goal. Putin’s rule is not totalitarian. It is autocratic, and most Russians have learned to accept it.

Considering Putin’s deep distrust of western style democracy, it is easy to understand why events like Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution were upsetting to him on a personal level. Furthermore, this incident fueled Putin’s theories that America was to blame for the political movement as part of the Bush doctrine to promote democracy throughout the world. Blaming America for political instability continued even into Putin’s 2012 return to the presidency when he thought Hillary Clinton and the State Department instigated protests in Russia. Furthermore, one can clearly see that Putin’s anti-democratic attitude accounts for the stark foreign policy differences between Russia and the United States. Myers writes “there existed a dark association in [Putin’s] mind between aspirations for democracy and the rise of radicalism.” This illustrates why Putin opposed America’s overthrow of Saddam in Iraq, the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya, and why he has fought against attempts to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria. When it comes to governance, Myers asserts that the Russian president believes that “people cannot be entrusted with the power to choose their own leaders except in the most carefully controlled process.”

The New Tsar also contains details on Russia’s war on terrorism and the war against Chechen insurgents. When Putin became prime minister, there was a brutal war taking place in Chechnya. Putin’s popularity among Russian citizens soared due to his handling of the war, which was characterized by “banging the hell out of the bandits.” This also hardened Putin’s stance towards America and Europe as international pressure was placed on Russia for human rights abuses and suspected war crimes. As the war in Chechnya raged, Russia faced its own war on terror with a string of apartment bombings in multiple cities, which claimed hundreds of lives and wounded over a thousand citizens. These bombings were followed by the Moscow Theater siege in October 2002. Then nearly two years later, Russia suffered the horrific hostage crisis at School No. 1 in Beslan, a small town in North Ossetia. These dark events strengthened Putin’s determination to consolidate the power of the state for security reasons. Myers concludes that Putin was not nostalgic for the Soviet Union as it was dominated by the Communist Party, but he writes that “Putin seemed to blame the siege in Beslan on Russia’s inability to preserve the strength that made the Soviet Union he remembered as a boy so strong and respected.”

Myers book digs into high-profile events such as the “Yukos affair” in which Putin ultimately imprisoned Russia’s wealthiest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, for what Myers concludes was the crime of being “the wrong kind of oligarch.” The book details several of the most notorious suspected assassinations to include that of journalist Anna Politkovskaya and Aleksandr Litvinenko. Myers provides useful facts and anecdotes related to Putin’s handling of political dissenters particularly with the case of the Pussy Riot group. Other notable moments of the biography include the issues surrounding the planning and development of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. Also, Myers includes the most recent international dust-ups with the U.S. over Edward Snowden and the Obama administration’s “red line” in Syria.

Finally, the book closes with the war in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea. Myers explains the skillful way in which Russia blended hard and soft power to influence the events in their favor. The use of irregular warfare tactics to include the infamous “little green men,” information operations and cyberattacks was done in a manner that gave Russia deniability. Ultimately, Putin’s objective was to reassert Russian influence and to halt NATO expansion, which Putin continually fears is creeping closer to Russia’s border. Myers explains that Ukraine holds significant historical meaning for Russians. The attempt to reconsolidate Ukraine within the Russian sphere of influence is part of what Myers calls Putin’s Eurasian ideology. Thus, what we have witnessed with the rise and reign of Vladimir Putin is the emergence of an ideological hardliner who sees himself as the leader of a broad pan-Eurasian Union that is committed to countering the ideas and influence of the West. While this may serve Putin’s political interests at home, it has left the world with renewed tensions eerily reminiscent of the Cold War. That is where the book ends, but follow-on editions would likely include the conclusion by seventeen U.S. intelligence agencies that Russia deliberately meddled in the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections. After reading The New Tsar, the reader can see that the hacking and leaks intended to create uncertainty and division in the U.S. electoral process have the specter of Vladimir Putin all over it.

I approached reading General Stanley McChrystal’s memoir, My Share of the Task, with high expectations. I tend to read a lot of memoirs from high ranking military leaders with noted observations on some of the habits and techniques that made them successful. While a lot of people are awed by General McChrystal’s one meal a day and his rigorous daily exercise, I found that his success as a leader can be summarized in one word: Passion. General McChrystal’s passion for his soldiers and the men and women he served with nearly overwhelms (in a good way) the reader on each page. It becomes very clear to the reader that General McChrystal’s passion for service and passion for command was the bedrock upon which he was not only personally successful but also drove the success of the units that he led. Furthermore, it cannot be understated how his wife and his family supported him in his demanding profession. The gratitude that he feels toward his family is also clear throughout the book, and he has no illusions that without his families unwavering support, he would not have been able to accomplish his “share of the task.”

Throughout the book, I appreciated General McChrystal’s candor. He wasn’t too proud to admit occasional mistakes, and he explicitly states that there were times when he had to figure out his own style of leadership. He mentions that occasionally he would try to find his direction between being too kind and too harsh. Ultimately, he learned that there was a value in just being consistent. I made note of those small nuggets of wisdom that permeate the book. Additionally, General McChrystal continually mentions his love for history and reading. He applied sharp analysis to a multitude of situations by simply reading books and resources that could give him context to the complexity of certain situations. He fits a pattern of extraordinary military readers who are voracious readers.

Throughout the book, I took away lessons on building teams by knowing your soldiers and employing them in accordance with their capabilities. Additionally, General McChrystal built strong teams through trust. The book becomes exceptionally thrilling in the chapters in which his team hunted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In some of the most critical moments during the hunt for the terrorist ringleader, General McChrystal displayed a high level of trust in the judgment of his subordinates. This includes moments in which he wanted to act on some intelligence, but had the patience to trust the advice of a subordinate in his task force named J.C. In a critical moment during the hunt for Zarqawi, J.C. advised tactical patience to which McChryatal agreed. The decision paid off not too long after he displayed trust in J.C.’s judgment. Furthermore, on the Zarqawi takedown, I was interested in the conduct of the interrogations and how the interrogators got some of the key detainees talk. In what I came to recognize as McChrystal’s style, the interrogations were successful due to the rapport and trust that the interrogators built with high level detainees. They learned about some of these detainees personally, and managed to leverage their egos and idiosyncratic behavior traits to their advantage. Overall, I loved reading about McChrystal’s time in Iraq as JSOC commander. It was impressive to hear how he constructed his own network to defeat the insurgent network. He clearly had a strong sense of the need to streamline the cycle of intelligence gathering and used it to drive operational tempo. The results speak for themselves in Iraq. General McChrystal personally drove the pace of operations through his relentless drive and unwavering work ethic.

The chapters on Afghanistan are informative as well. General McChrystal clearly had his work cut out for him from the beginning. He sought to replicate many of the principles that made him and his team successful in Iraq. The reader also sees him thrust into a new role in which for better or worse he was forced to handle the political dynamics that came with the role of ISAF commander. But, he managed to succeed despite some of these early setbacks, and ultimately secured a similar surge of troops in Afghanistan to accomplish the new counterinsurgency strategy. One senses the overwhelming nature of the task and the immense heartaches and pains of trying to turn the Afghan situation around. It feels abrupt, which it was due to the release of the career damning Rolling Stone article. General McChrystal doesn’t make any excuses or apologies for it though. In the end, he left his command and the Army, and after reading about the challenges and burdens placed upon him in over thirty years of hard service, the reader can sympathize with his wife, Annie, who at the book’s conclusion, felt a sense of relief once her husband’s journey in the Army came to an end.

General McChrystal’s legacy continues in the military today. His actions as JSOC commander deserve careful study, and will be canonized in American military history. Through his personal example of leadership and his unrelenting passion for his soldiers and his country, General McChrystal will endure on the roster of great American military leaders. This book is devoid of bravado. It is a testament to the straightforwardness and humility of a man who embodies service and sacrifice to his soldiers and a grateful nation.

Karl Marlentes is mentioned. He is the author of Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War and What It Is Like To Go To War Both are good books.

Washington’s Immortals was written by Patrick K. O’Donnell, a military historian who focuses primarily on special forces units. Although there weren’t any “special forces” units during the Revolutionary War, the author picked a little-known Maryland Regiment to show an evolution in tactics and leadership that still resonates with military professionals to this day. This “elite” regiment also forms the backdrop for a fascinating and comprehensive history of the Revolutionary War. It is always exciting to read a book that is exhaustively researched and well-written. This book skillfully uses facts, quotes, and statistics to drive the story forward. The narrative does not become oversaturated with details that belabor one event or person. Washington’s Immortals is easy, fast reading. The reader will be surprised by how much of the Revolutionary period’s military history gets covered. Due to this fact, the elite Maryland regiment being chronicled sometimes takes a backseat to the larger story of the American Revolution. Nevertheless, this book is a very fun read, and the reader will easily learn or re-learn a lot of interesting American military history.

Everyone has their own reasons for reading history and military history. I find that more than anything I am interested in the aspects of war and military history that pertain to human nature, leadership and decision-making. For this reason, I am going to break this review into three important themes that I found very relevant- leadership, tactics, and human factors.

1. Leadership

This book has several examples of good and bad leadership. I have always been interested in General Washington’s leadership since reading David McCullough’s classic 1776. I’ve always found it fascinating to study how Washington made a lot of mistakes early in the war and occasionally came up with plans that were overly complicated. Sometimes it seemed like Washington’s army survived on nothing but luck and British miscalculations. But, Washington’s ability to adapt, learn, and use his personal influence helped him ultimately lead his army to victory over the British.

Additionally, this book chronicles many leaders- American and British- that I found fascinating especially men like Nathaniel Greene and Daniel Morgan. These two leaders emerged in the second half of the war when most of the fighting had shifted to the southern colonies. It was interesting to learn that Greene and Morgan were both extremely well-read and well-respected individuals. They were students of their profession and warfighting. Furthermore, they applied their knowledge and experience to the battlefield in creative ways. For example, at the Cowpens battlefield, Daniel Morgan did an exhaustive terrain study during an initial reconnoiter. He determined that a field with a sloping hill and a ravine that cut across the Green River Road was suitable to stop his men from retreating while also preventing the British from flanking them. He determined immediately to fight the battle at that location. Furthermore, the book also explains that leaders like Morgan knew not only the terrain but also his own men and the character of his enemy. To this extent, he developed tactics that exploited his enemies’ weaknesses and took advantage of his troops key strengths. Morgan and other American leaders helped pioneer the “defense in depth,” which was “novel for the time.”

Finally, I appreciate the way the book also explores examples of British and French leadership. Contrary to the way movies and the media have portrayed the British General Cornwallis, he comes across as a good example of a leader to study. The author highlights many situations in which Cornwallis led from the front and inspired his own troops with his personal example.

2. Tactics

As I mentioned with the Daniel Morgan example, the Washington’s Immortals shows how American and British forces adapted during the war and changed their tactics to exploit their enemies’ weaknesses while maximizing their advantages. It was interesting to read that the British began the war with refined tactics that they had learned from the French and Indian War several years earlier. In fact, the British were experienced in fighting with lighter forces that could strike quickly and relied on speed and maneuver. The book explains that a lot of these tactics had been adapted from fighting alongside American Indian tribes. Furthermore, the American tactics of guerilla style warfare weren’t developed until the latter half of the war when the fighting had shifted to the southern colonies. The book shows that the Americans recognized that many of the British positions were spread throughout the Carolinas and they sought to exploit the isolated British positions by conducting raids, harassing supply lines, and springing ambushes.

Regarding the Maryland Regiment, the book explains that they were at the “forefront of helping pioneer an American Style of combat” (O’Donnell 86). O’Donnell explains:

Tactically, the Americans tended to concentrate their firepower on a specific point in the battlefield where it had the greatest impact. They also developed defensive maneuvers that wore down the enemy, taking advantage of the terrain and making the best use possible of the militia and Continentals they had at their disposal. At the strategic level, the Americans used intelligence as a force multiplier, helping them position their troops to the best advantage. In addition, the Marylanders and the rest of the American troops relied on speed and flexibility, combined with judicious risk taking; they avoided needlessly wasting men’s lives for operations that didn’t produce results.

(O’Donnell 86)

3. Human Factors

The author details the challenges that Washington’s army faced in terms of men and resources. After reading this book, I am interested in learning more about the economics of the conflict and how America paid for the war especially as hyperinflation became a significant challenge. With the economic hardships that existed, O’Donnell explains that in the winter months many of the American troops were hiking without shoes. With the lack of necessities like food and clothing, it is not hard to understand why desertion was a significant problem that Washington had to deal with. The book highlights a lot of instances in which Americans deserted and fought for the British, and then returned to the American side only to desert again and fight once again for the British. These types of anecdotes are scattered throughout the book, and provide some lively entertainment.

Additionally, the Maryland Regiment fought the countless battles from 1776-1783 and marched thousands of miles. Due to their experience and reliability in combat, the regiment was frequently put at critical points in many of the engagements. The author explains that Washington frequently used them as a rear guard to protect the Continental Army. The best example of this occurred during the Battle of Brooklyn where the Marylanders earned the distinction “Immortal 400” for a daring assault that saved much of Washington’s army from total defeat. They were also used as a rear guard during the bold escape from Long Island in which Washington’s army was successfully ferried to Manhattan in the middle of the night with the Marylanders being the last ones to leave and narrowly missing the British. Later in the war, the Marylanders were used as a “forlorn hope” which the author describes as essentially a “suicide squad.” Throughout these difficult situations, the Regiment endured significant changes to its task organization as men were killed, wounded, or captured. They lost several key leaders, but there were some that prevailed until the end and comprised the backbone of the Regiment. These men included John Eager Howard, Colonel William Smallwood, Otho Holland Williams, Mordecai Gist, and others, whose names and personal example contributed significantly to America’s war for independence.

Finally, the author ends the book with a call to action for the reader. Having learned about the history of the Maryland Regiment and their tenacity and determination, the author explains that the graves of 256 of the Immortal 400 have yet to be discovered. The challenge is for lovers of history to tell the story of these brave men and spread the word of their heroism in the hope that one day the hallowed ground on which they fought and died will be re-discovered, re-purchased, and dedicated to their memory and amazing legacy.

Click to get a copy of Washington’s Immortals