counter create hit The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy

Availability: Ready to download

..". a strong and stimulating book. It has no rival in either scope or quality. For libraries, history buffs, and armchair warriors, it is a must. For political science students, career diplomats, and officers in the armed services, its reading should be required." --History "A particularly timely account." --Kansas City Times "It reads easily but is not a popularized histor ..". a strong and stimulating book. It has no rival in either scope or quality. For libraries, history buffs, and armchair warriors, it is a must. For political science students, career diplomats, and officers in the armed services, its reading should be required." --History "A particularly timely account." --Kansas City Times "It reads easily but is not a popularized history... nor does the book become a history of battles.... Weigley's analyses and interpretations are searching, competent, and useful." --Perspective


Compare

..". a strong and stimulating book. It has no rival in either scope or quality. For libraries, history buffs, and armchair warriors, it is a must. For political science students, career diplomats, and officers in the armed services, its reading should be required." --History "A particularly timely account." --Kansas City Times "It reads easily but is not a popularized histor ..". a strong and stimulating book. It has no rival in either scope or quality. For libraries, history buffs, and armchair warriors, it is a must. For political science students, career diplomats, and officers in the armed services, its reading should be required." --History "A particularly timely account." --Kansas City Times "It reads easily but is not a popularized history... nor does the book become a history of battles.... Weigley's analyses and interpretations are searching, competent, and useful." --Perspective

30 review for The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy

  1. 5 out of 5

    Graham

    As a foundational text for understanding not only American strategy, but basic concepts of national strategy itself, this book is unsurpassed. It’s one of the few I can truly call “epic.” Beginning with George Washington’s “strategy of attrition” during the Revolutionary War, Weigley traces the scope of American strategic thought up to the closing days of the Vietnam War. Structurally, American strategy falls into several phases. Washington eventually gives way to Halleck, who is then replaced by As a foundational text for understanding not only American strategy, but basic concepts of national strategy itself, this book is unsurpassed. It’s one of the few I can truly call “epic.” Beginning with George Washington’s “strategy of attrition” during the Revolutionary War, Weigley traces the scope of American strategic thought up to the closing days of the Vietnam War. Structurally, American strategy falls into several phases. Washington eventually gives way to Halleck, who is then replaced by Ulysses Grant. Grant’s approach to war – “a strategy of annihilation” – then serves as the United States’ guiding principle until well into the twentieth century. As was the case in most arenas, nukes changed everything. The beginning of the Cold War was a return to Marshall and MacArthur’s styles from World War II, but that emphasis on conventional war didn’t last long. Deterrence soon became the word of the day, and the strategic legacies that the army had inherited from Washington, Greene, Grant, and a host of other thinkers fell completely by the wayside. The modern U.S. Navy is, of course, born out of the writings of Alfred Thayer Mahan. Mahanian naval thought went relatively unchanged until after World War II, but the dominance of battleships remained alive and well until relatively late in the war. The Air Force gets a similar ‘father figure’ in Billy Mitchell, and the struggle to become an independent branch of the armed services bears particular resonance now, with that very independence being questioned. The turf war between the navy and air force in the early days of the Cold War is very well-documented, with the emphasis on strategic bombers versus carrier aviation shown to be more important than a mere interservice spat. Weigley’s writing is accessible in that rarest of ways – intelligible yet sophisticated. At times he explains fairly complex concepts, but manages to avoid getting too caught up in minutiae while still covering all the important details. Thinkers in every echelon of the military get a fair hearing, from the usual generals and Joint Chiefs down to the occasional major or even captain (Boyd: curiously absent). And while the overall relevance of The American Way of War is unquestionable, the rather abrupt stopping-point of 1973 is somewhat jarring, and one wishes that Weigley had continued to examine the evolution of American strategy. For career strategists, The American Way of War might seem oversimplified, but for everyone else, it’s a perfect introduction to not just American doctrine, but national strategy as a concept. And perhaps most important, Weigley demonstrates just where we’ve come from, and how far we have – or haven’t – come since Washington and Valley Forge.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Joseph Stieb

    Weigley covers American military history from the Revolutionary War to the Vietnam War, showing that since the Civil War the US has preferred the "strategy of annihilation" over both the Napoleonic strategy of the decisive battle (followed by Lee in the Civil War) and the strategy of attrition, pursued by Washington in the Revolutionary War. The strategy of annihilation says that the military should focus on the destruction of the enemy's military forces through the application of overwhelming f Weigley covers American military history from the Revolutionary War to the Vietnam War, showing that since the Civil War the US has preferred the "strategy of annihilation" over both the Napoleonic strategy of the decisive battle (followed by Lee in the Civil War) and the strategy of attrition, pursued by Washington in the Revolutionary War. The strategy of annihilation says that the military should focus on the destruction of the enemy's military forces through the application of overwhelming force. The US pursued the strategy of annihilation for several reasons. From the time of the Civil War on, we had the resources and manpower to batter enemy forces into submission, as Grant did to Lee in the 1864-1865 campaigns. As a democracy, the strategy of annihilation serves the public need for a relatively rapid victory by defeating the enemy quickly and decisively, avoiding long drawn-out conflicts that would undermine electoral support. Finally, the US has avoided having to compromise at the end of wars because the strategy of annihilation renders foes completely prostrate, at least before the Cold War. What makes this book so valuable is the clear thinking and presentation of complex ideas about strategy, one of the most overused and misunderstood terms of the present day. Weigley walks the reader through the problems faced by the US at different times, the doctrinal theorizing, and the successes and failures of the application of doctrine. The most interesting part of the book is the final section about strategy in the Cold War. The Atomic Revolution rendered the strategy of annihilation moot against America's principle foe, because pursuing the annihilation of the foe would virtually guarantee one's own annihilation. Ike's massive retaliation policy reflected the American annihilation tradition, but it was unsuited to stopping Communist advances below the level of nuclear or even conventional war. Therefore, the US developed limited war capabilities, including unconventional war, new tactics like airmobile infantry, expanded military aid missions, and counterinsurgency. The military, however, chafed under increased political restrictions on the use of force in both Korea and Vietnam. Despite the push of JFK and others to change the military's strategic thinking, pursuing the annihilation of the foe's military forces remained the default strategic concept. When the US started putting forces in Vietnam, the civilian leaders at the DoD and the military leadership were thinking in very different terms. The DoD under McNamara pursued a limited war strategy called graduated response, in which force is used at calibrated levels to communicate resolve to and punish North Vietnam. The military, however, expanded their mission rapidly from protecting airbases and carving out enclaves (limited war) to search and destroy missions, huge troops requests, and massive aerial bombing (. In a sense, these two parties saw the use of force in very different ways, and both strategies were probably erroneous for Vietnam. Weigley concedes that if the US had actually pursued a COIN-type strategy in Vietnam, they would have had a better chance at succeeding. It's important to keep in mind here that the military's shift to limited war did not necessarily mean a shift away from conventional strategy or thinking. Weigley ends the book with a provocative idea "Because the record of nonnuclear limited war in obtaining acceptable decisions at tolerable cost is also scarcely heartening, the history of usable combat may at last be reaching its end." I may be missing his meaning here, but I think he's pretty off, and not just in hindsight. Limited war failed in Vietnam, but that doesn't mean that the use of force, carefully calibrated to one's political goals, the interests of other nations such as the USSR, and the realities on the ground, can't be useful. He's right to say that the strategy of annihilation is less applicable than in the past, but the vast spectrum of military intervention below that remains potentially useful to the US and other nations. 477 pages.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Scottnshana

    I used to teach out of this text--discussing Jomini's influence on West Point in the 19th century and therefore how the Civil War was fought, for instance--but I wanted to finally sit down and read the entire "Big Pink Book." I wanted to start at George Washington and end at "Vietnamization" to view the common threads in the way U.S. military and civilian strategists viewed our commitments to war. Dr. Weigley's book does all this, linking the events we read about in high school history classes w I used to teach out of this text--discussing Jomini's influence on West Point in the 19th century and therefore how the Civil War was fought, for instance--but I wanted to finally sit down and read the entire "Big Pink Book." I wanted to start at George Washington and end at "Vietnamization" to view the common threads in the way U.S. military and civilian strategists viewed our commitments to war. Dr. Weigley's book does all this, linking the events we read about in high school history classes with decisions on weapons procurement, national interests, and plans to defend those interests both on-shore and abroad. I have spent the last 25 years studying the Cold War, but I found that Weigley's treatment of the early American air- and sea-power theorists brought out the details for me in topics like Strategic Air Command, the MacArthur/Ridgway transition in Korea, and JFK's fight to create and nurture a SOF capability to counter Soviet support for "Wars of National Liberation." I have always suspected that General Maxwell Taylor was more complex than the personality McMaster describes in "Dereliction of Duty" (you're not going to change my mind on LBJ or McNamara, though, which I think McMaster nailed down well) and this is elucidated in the Weigley book. I also think Weigley makes a pretty good case for Dien Bien Phu's deleterious effect on the Eisenhower Administration's attempts to defend the free world on the cheap (and pushing most of the resources to one of our armed forces at the expense of the others). Admittedly, it's a big doorstop of a book, but I found reading a chapter a week gave me time to ruminate on each of them and I'd recommend that approach to anyone interested in American military history and how the U.S. views its interaction with the rest of the world.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Elwin Kline

    This was a recommended read for a college course I took back in 2015 combining military history and psychology, the class was titled "Principles of War." I really enjoyed the course and learned a lot. Unfortunately that was 4+ years ago since the time of this review and I honestly don't remember anything specifically remarkable that sticks out in my mind about this book. However, I do remember it did enhance my experience for the class. I may re-read this again one day, however for the time bein This was a recommended read for a college course I took back in 2015 combining military history and psychology, the class was titled "Principles of War." I really enjoyed the course and learned a lot. Unfortunately that was 4+ years ago since the time of this review and I honestly don't remember anything specifically remarkable that sticks out in my mind about this book. However, I do remember it did enhance my experience for the class. I may re-read this again one day, however for the time being I have quite the queue going and I am looking forward to getting through those before I start any sort of "re-read journey."

  5. 4 out of 5

    Andrew Carr

    A deserved classic. Weigley provides an engaging and insightful analysis of the evolution and development of US strategic practice and thought. This book demonstrates the power of ideas - namely the long standing jominian preference for 'annihilation', meaning the direct destruction of the enemies main armed force - as the primary US way of war from the Civil War to the 1970s. Occasionally it gets bogged down into the details of military operations, but it is largely an impressive analysis of th A deserved classic. Weigley provides an engaging and insightful analysis of the evolution and development of US strategic practice and thought. This book demonstrates the power of ideas - namely the long standing jominian preference for 'annihilation', meaning the direct destruction of the enemies main armed force - as the primary US way of war from the Civil War to the 1970s. Occasionally it gets bogged down into the details of military operations, but it is largely an impressive analysis of the strategic level. An all too rare achievement. There are also engaging analyses of US strategic thinkers and their key work.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Dale

    This book is often referred to at the US Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) but was not required reading when I was there. Took the time to read it and wished I would have done so earlier. Very insightful into how American leaders and strategists have approached our wars. Recommended for operational planners, strategists, and military history readers so that they can understand underlining strategies in America's conflicts. This book is often referred to at the US Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) but was not required reading when I was there. Took the time to read it and wished I would have done so earlier. Very insightful into how American leaders and strategists have approached our wars. Recommended for operational planners, strategists, and military history readers so that they can understand underlining strategies in America's conflicts.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Janine Spendlove

    For anyone interested in the history of military tactics, well, specifically American military tactics, this is definitely the most comprehensive book on the subject I've found. I give 3 stars because while it was very informative, I found the writing to be uneven - it was dull and difficult to read at times, while at others I raced along. It felt almost as if several people wrote the book, though perhaps it's just because I found certain subjects more interesting than others. For anyone interested in the history of military tactics, well, specifically American military tactics, this is definitely the most comprehensive book on the subject I've found. I give 3 stars because while it was very informative, I found the writing to be uneven - it was dull and difficult to read at times, while at others I raced along. It felt almost as if several people wrote the book, though perhaps it's just because I found certain subjects more interesting than others.

  8. 4 out of 5

    William Oneill

    I read Weigley's monograph in 1990 as a textbook for a course on Military Policy. Weigley's study examines American miltary revolution to the Vietnam War. His comments apply to today's ongoing fights in Iraq and Afghanistan I read Weigley's monograph in 1990 as a textbook for a course on Military Policy. Weigley's study examines American miltary revolution to the Vietnam War. His comments apply to today's ongoing fights in Iraq and Afghanistan

  9. 4 out of 5

    Bethany

    Overview of military strategy and campaigns in American history - very interesting if you're interested in military strategy, very boring if you're not :) Overview of military strategy and campaigns in American history - very interesting if you're interested in military strategy, very boring if you're not :)

  10. 5 out of 5

    Sean Chick

    A brilliant summation of America in war. I may not agree with everything in this book, but I respect it none the less.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Dane Christensen

    History, history, history, with commentary on how it relates to current thought.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Barron

    Overrated.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Packard Mills

    Notes, as part of the US Navy War College's Strategy and War Notes, as part of the US Navy War College's Strategy and War

  14. 4 out of 5

    Matthew

    A seminal work tracing the history of US strategic thought and application. Weigley demonstrates that as often as not, the US has failed to adopt a coherent strategic approach and frequently enters conflicts without a clear strategy.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Josh Paul

    The 2/3s of this book I read were a good survey of American military policy and strategy.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Claire S

    Relatively abhorent to me, but - then again - we keep being involved in military conflict, so perhaps as a citizen I should be a bit more informed than I am.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Cath Holden

    This reminds of mcpherson's battle cry of freedom. This reminds of mcpherson's battle cry of freedom.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Al

    Very good work which traces the development of U.S. warfighting doctrine. The bibliography is a gold mine of hard-to-find works. This is a foundational text.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Levie Galapon

    Incredibly good sweep over American military history. Breaks up our history into different elements of strategy (or non-strategy).

  20. 5 out of 5

    Paul Holloway

    The American way of war; a history of United States military strategy and policy by Russell Frank Weigley (1973)

  21. 4 out of 5

    Steve

    A classic.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Wendy Graham

    Hard to get through, but still very informative.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Martin Gibson

  24. 4 out of 5

    Pete

  25. 4 out of 5

    Ashley

  26. 4 out of 5

    Jim Armor

  27. 5 out of 5

    Mahlon

  28. 4 out of 5

    Joshua

  29. 4 out of 5

    Haris Ali

  30. 5 out of 5

    Rick

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.