Can't Wait to Read It

Over the summer, I read (reread?) Rick Atkinson's Army at Dawn; I reviewed it here. Now, as OpFor so kindly reminds me, the second part of his trilogy was just released. If it wasn't for classes, I'd rush out to pick it up.

Glenn Reynolds on "Microtrends"

One of the recent additions to my Amazon Wish List is Mark Penn's Microtrends. Penn is Hillary's chief strategist and by all accounts a rather brilliant pollster; he's now published a book in a quest for credibility as a "serious intellectual" or some such. And now Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds has a review. Go forth and read.

Book Review: An Army at Dawn

Over the years, I've read extensively about the Second World War from all sides, but especially from our own American perspective. As such, I was rather familiar with America's first act in the European Theater of Operations, Operation Torch, the invasion of North Africa in November of 1942. This of course led to months of brutal fighting, before all Axis forces on the southern Mediterranean littoral were defeated in May of the following year. But even with all of my reading, I'd never encountered so magisterial a chronicle of those brutal months as Rick Atkinson's An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa , 1942-1943.

Even with the widespread popularity of the war, thanks to prolific and gifted authors such as the late Stephen Ambrose and individual efforts such as Brokaw's Greatest Generation and Bradley's Flags of Our Fathers, I feel that I wasn't alone in my relative ignorance of this first campaign, unique in the annals of the war. I think this ignorance stems largely from the same success of authors such as Ambrose, whose focus was almost exclusively on the last eleven months of the war, from Normandy to the Elbe. Atkinson, a former writer for the Post, has thus performed a great service in producing a tome both incredibly insightful and nuanced without losing sight of the overarching strategic campaign, all spun in eminently readable prose that often borders on the lyrical.

And it's certainly a story worth telling. Because of that same bias that limits the reading public's understanding of the conflict to its final phase, we often unknowingly digest a fallacious story of an American Leviathan, inexorably freeing Europe and crushing Nazism. Atkinson paints a radically different picture, one in which US troops were woefully inadequate and leadership too often incompetent. Operation Torch could have been a disaster in the mold of Dieppe had the landings been opposed by the Germans; instead Vichy French forces put up an inconsistent resistance that varied from the spirited to the nonexistent. But even once firmly ashore, green troops and officers made poor decisions and failed to exploit opportunities, lengthening the campaign by months and forcing troops to endure brutal fighting in horrific weather and over inhospitable terrain. Meanwhile at the highest levels of command, things were hardly improved as US and British generals, in stark contrast to the warm relations between the "cousins" so often depicted, were mutually distrustful, with the British having little regard for the Americans' martial abilities. These unfortunate elements fed into unnecessary carnage, most notably the bloodbath at Kasserine Pass (perhaps the best-known battle of the North African theater thanks to its cameo in Patton).

Thus Atkinson suggests that the final, overwhelming Allied victory - a quarter-million prisoners taken, several of the most storied German formations utterly destroyed, Rommel's fighting spirit broken - was almost in spite of itself. Sheer weight of numbers, an American ability to make good losses of men and materiel in the face of German shortages, played a significant role in that outcome. But so too did the fact that the same uncertain soldiers who blundered ashore on November 8th were by the end hardened veterans, capable of beating the Germans at their own game, though even then commanders too often flung the lives of their men away.

Also of note are those commanders that Atkinson brings to life. He skillfully depicts Eisenhower's evolution through the campaign, beginning with a commander few Americans would recognize as the victorious Ike; he also confirms the common conceptions of others, especially Montgomery (arrogant and insufferable) and Patton (vainglorious).

Thankfully, Atkinson didn't craft An Army at Dawn as a stand-alone work. Rather, it's the first of a trilogy he calls the Liberation Trilogy. The second volume, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944, is due out this autumn; I for one am eagerly anticipating its release.

Book Review: Crashing the Gate

And now for something completely different! Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics is the product of a civil union between two of the Left's leading bloggers, Jerome Armstrong (of myDD.com) and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (of DailyKos). It's also rather unlike anything I've read recently. [I have to point out that I read this for purposes of research not out of any ideological attraction.]

The two bloggers-turned-authors are actually ideally situated to write about the emergence of a new progressive movement; perhaps because of that they discard entirely any semblance of objectivity. Because they are still to some degree outside of the party hierarchy (even if Harry Reid et al now kowtow to them), the book is a rant against the Democratic Establishment as much as it is an anti-Republican screed. In that spirit, they start by examining the GOP, slandering at will while grudgingly respecting the electoral juggernaut that's been built over the last few decades before turning on their own.

But within Democratic ranks, they lambaste both the establishment, which they accuse of being nothing more than "Republican-lite" (thus the nutroots' derision for the Democratic Leadership Council and Clintonian Democracy) as well as incompetent (an honest indictment), as well as the progressives which they view as self-centered and narrow-minded. This, then, is one of the central points of their arguments: if Democrats are going to reassert themselves, they're going to have to overthrow the calcified hierarchy and weld "progressive" organizations (abortionists, labor, environmentalists, to name the big three) into a cohesive coalition focused on victory.

Not that history gives them much reason for optimism. As they relate, a conference putting progressive leaders into a room together had much in common with a kindergarten, where everyone was a cry baby if "their issue" wasn't put front and center. But they also cite some successful case studies: the Montana Miracle of 2004 (where despite Bush's overwhelming victory in the state, Democrats succeeded in seizing the state government) and Colorado in the same year. The two were different: Colorado brought the progressive organizations together (allowing them to support only those candidates who didn't offend their delicate sensibilities) while in Montana, Governor Brian Schweitzer basically discarded the interest groups, understanding them to be far outside of the Montana mainstream.

Though I won't delve into it too deeply, they also have an interesting discussion of the technological revolution in politics, in terms of voter-targeting, utilizing the Internet, and new ad strategies. Again, they grudgingly admit a Republican superiority. Of course much to their chagrin, the Democratic establishment has ignored many of these developments; it's also for this reason that they clamor for the establishment's overthrow.

Armstrong and Zuniga also jealously analyze the VRWC ("Vast Right Wing Conspiracy") - the think tanks, foundations, development organizations, and publications that nurture the Republican farm team, produce innovative policies (all of which they dismiss as ineffective in reality), and generally have destroyed Democratic candidates over the last thirteen years. Of course, their description of this nefarious infrastructure is necessarily hyperbolic and self-deceptive (as well as revealing about their worldview) when they say things like "There's no doubt, as our personal experience demonstrated vividly, that the Right dominates the media." Excuse me? What planet are you two clowns on? (I often feel this empty Leftist critique really means "dammit, Katie Couric never calls for state ownership of the means of production!").

They close with some tactical notes: the importance of a viable ground game, both on the part of the candidates and a grassroots outreach effort, as well as "challenge every Republican." This last part, I think, is one of the more unorthodox and dangerous parts of their plan. Challenging every Republican ties down incumbents and often forces cash to be spent as an insurance policy in safe districts. The GOP should do the same as much as possible; sure even a libertarian in San Francisco wouldn't have a shot of unseating Nancy Pelosi, but if it forced her to stay home, that'd be a victory in itself (I think the fact that Democrats can find so many willing sacrificial lambs is telling).

I've got issues with this book on so many levels. I have to acknowledge that it's not intended as a dispassionate look at the rise of a new political movement (that's what my thesis will be for!); instead it's a manual for their followers and should be treated as such. Its BS factor is sky-high, but there are some valuable insights within.

But my biggest complaint is with the mob-rule direct-democracy movement it embodies; this country's republican foundations have long since been dismantled, and we're worse for it.

I'm not going to tell you to go read this, I'm going to say that if you believe Sun Tzu and wish to know your enemy (and have a strong stomach for BS and distortions), feel free.

Book Review: Dreadnought

With Dreadnought Britain, Germany and the Coming of the Great War, Robert K. Massie succeeds where few authors could. He has written an insightful and engaging volume that captures the personalities of all of the key players while fitting them exactly into the bigger picture. Indeed, Massie's character sketches are in many ways the highlight and the key to this book and to understanding Europe's tragic path to war.

It should go without saying that this was not my first exposure to the causes of the Great War; in fact a class I took a few years ago devoted several lectures to the conflict's origins as an example of why rigid alliance structures and arms races are inherently dangerous. But where such theoretical explanations fail (and this is my primary criticism of political science as a discipline) is that they fundamentally underestimate the human element. Essentially, Massie suggests that without Kaiser Wilhelm II (or at least with a Kaiser that was more like his liberal-minded parents and less like his authoritarian Iron Chancellor) there would be no war. Too often, it was the insecure, egotistical, meddling, short-sighted Kaiser - motivated in part by a sense of German inferiority and jealousy of Great Britain - that pushed Europe to the brink. Whether it was his pursuit of a great navy, an expensive diversion for a nation whose power had always been land-based, or colonies as an object of national pride and a justification for that navy, Wilhelm was badly misguided.

Exacerbating the Kaiser's personality were many other members of his government who were equally motivated. To some degree one might include Bismarck in this category, though there remains a critical caveat: Bismarck had a grand vision and an understanding of other nations' capacity for bullying, humiliation, etc. that allowed him to remain fully in control of the situation so long as he remained in power and the ruling Hohenzollern did not meddle. Indeed in some way, Bismarck comes across as a tragic figure who should not be seen as the origin of the Great War (though too often fingers are pointed at him).

Massie also does an admirable job of illustrating various attempts to defuse tensions (the Haldane Mission and the Naval Holiday being two pertinent examples), too often derailed by Germany for one reason or another.

Finally he also paints a picture of a bygone era. A British society still ruled by the landed gentry whose ministers socialized at country house parties every weekend and who often came to office more out of duty than ambition while social change produced a powerful middle class, represented in the halls of power by men like Joe Chamberlain. A Europe where all of the rulers were related - Wilhelm II was the grandson of Britain's Queen Victoria, and nephew of Edward VII.

Dreadnought is by no means a brief read, but is insightful and rewarding. If you've got a week ( or two or three) free, it's well worth your time.

[No I haven't read this 900+ page tome in its entirety since I posted a review of Freakonomics a few days ago]

Book Review: Freakonomics

I'll admit that Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner's Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything came out more than two years ago and despite its being widely well-received, I only now got around to reading it. Sorry.

That being said, I found it much as promised: lacking a unifying theme, almost delightfully random, and really insightful. Levitt's work has clearly moved economics past its burdensome title of the "dismal science" into a more accessible and enlightening realm. I also found it noteworthy to show what economists can do given the right data. Anyways, a brief, shallow two cents.


Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything

On Top Of My Reading List

Coming out tomorrow: Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10. From Amazon:

On a clear night in late June 2005, four U.S. Navy SEALs left their base in northern Afghanistan for the mountainous Pakistani border. Their mission was to capture or kill a notorious al Qaeda leader known to be ensconced in a Taliban stronghold surrounded by a small but heavily armed force. Less then twenty-four hours later, only one of those Navy SEALs remained alive.

This is a story that I think barely made it into the media but finally it's being told. Powerline has a link to the first chapter online somewhere. Far more is available from the fine fellows over at Blackfive; especially noteworthy are two entries whose links I'll put directly here. Both are from Froggy Ruminations, home of two SEALS-turned-bloggers. One is one of their thoughts on the funeral of those that died that day, the other is their account of things as heard through the SEAL grapevine.


From what I can tell, this SEAL's story is truly incredible; I believe he's now back at it in Iraq. I don't know where we get these guys but the entire country owes them a debt of gratitude we cannot hope to repay.

The Forgotten Man

Some might remember Amity Shlaes; she used to write a column for the Financial Times. Now she's the author of the just-released The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. Conservative economic historians don't often write histories of the era (or write much history in general), and if the book is anything like Shlaes' eminently readable columns, it'll be a treat. Check out reviews from Powerline and Opinion Journal if you're curious.

Book Review: South Park Conservatives

Brian Anderson's South Park Conservatives: The Revolt Against Liberal Media Bias is a gem of a book; short, to the point, and leaving its reader (so long as you're right of center) with a renewed sense of hope. Starting with the same premise as so many other authors (Bernard Goldberg comes to mind), Anderson lambasts the hopelessly biased media. Rathergate is only one count of many in his indictment.

He is also, fitting for a fellow who is the editor of City Journal, willing to look at the disturbing degree to which modern liberalism is inherently illiberal. These are the people who whole-heartedly buy into Marcuse's doctrine of "liberating tolerance" and Rawls's argument that political debate must only take into account "reasonable" doctrines; both thinkers' constructs obviously have no place for conservatism or conservative principles. Thus liberal attempts to depict Republicans and conservatives as racist, misogynistic and homophobic bigots is part of their own internal effort to throw conservatism out of the bounds of "reasonableness." This is also, of course, a liberalism with a penchant for ironic Orwellianism and double speak, and the unspoken rule that free speech ends if you don't agree with them. See the treatment at Columbia of the Minutemen (or closer to home, the treatment at Duke of David Horowitz). Further this is the group that refuses to see bias in anyone that agrees with them; thus they can justify calling Dan Rather objective while working themselves into a lather over anyone who airs a conservative perspective. By extension, this is why Democrats are making noises about reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine" (itself an Orwellian misnomer) - because only those that disagree with them are biased and in need of balancing.

But whereas this is as far as many go, Anderson rightly points out that things are changing. Quickly. Sure liberals still hold on to the Big 3 (whose viewership is plummeting) and many major newspapers, to say nothing of large swathes of the academe. But technological revolutions have given rise to a new media - talk radio, cable news, the internet - where Republicans are either a major force or effectively dominate. Rush and O'Reilly are the face of this new media. And they're not just disseminating the conservative message like never before, they (and especially the blogs) are holding the mainstream media accountable, calling BS when (often) appropriate, and forcing them to cover stories that would otherwise be ignored as incompatible with the liberal meta-narrative.

He also suggests that times are changing on campuses around the country as conservative principles, journals, College Republicans chapters, etc. are flourishing. He's quick to point out that the faculty, overwhelmingly liberal, still hold the high ground, but that conservatism is no longer invisible on campuses. Some of his interviewees suggest that this is the result of liberal indoctrination, a sort of classroom blowback; universities also act as a sort of ideological forge where faced with liberal nonsense in all its absurd glory, students embrace and refine their conservative principles.

But what Anderson doesn't point out is that these very instruments of conservative campus revival also suggest that liberals are doomed to another generation of failure. The modern Republican revolution - 1994 to the present (?) - has been grounded in ideas, in alternatives to tired Democratic policies (no matter how you frame it, tax and spend is still tax and spend, and cut and run is still cut and run!); the next generation of conservative activists are already getting introduced to that culture of innovation. Their liberal counterparts , in contrast, are too often picketing against some new "injustice" or soaking up the latest drivel of race/gender/class studies - nice if you're seeking a career in navel-gazing, but absolutely insufficient if you're going to shape the future of the nation.

Finally, the title itself points to an entertainment industry that is in places reacting viciously to the PC nonsense and condescension that characterize the Left as a whole and especially its Hollywood incarnation. Leading the charge here is Comedy Central's South Park - not so much conservative as anti-liberal, gleefully destroying liberal idols and mocking liberals such as Al Gore, Rob Reiner, and Michael Moore. Priceless stuff really.

South Park Conservatives isn't an equally intellectual counterpoint to Bloom's Closing of the American Mind; it isn't meant to be. Rather, it chronicles some critical evolutions in the media and suggests that incessant griping about liberalism's chokehold on the MSM is overwrought, that it is in many ways a colossus with clay feet. It's got a message, but it's light enough to be a beach read. Go forth and enjoy.

Check it out on Amazon

[Posted on Amazon as well, FYI]