What do you think?
Rate this book
Between War and Peace: How America Ends Its Wars
Now in paperback, Between War and Peace is “a set of essays devoted to the shadowy ground on which the guns have ceased their roar, but could resume at any moment” ( Kirkus Reviews ).As the United States attempts to extricate itself from two long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, nothing could be more vital than a thorough examination of the way America has ended its major conflicts in the past. As it fills an important gap in military history, Between War and Peace is bound to be a pillar of military academy and college curricula. The book presents fifteen essays by leading American historians, each of which deals in fascinating detail with the aims of these wars, their predominant strategies, their final campaigns, the course and causes of termination, and their ramifications for the nation’s future. Taken together, they will be a groundbreaking addition to the canon of military history. A formidable, collaborative effort that illuminates the past in ways that will help us understand our troubled present, Between War and Peace takes readers inside some of American history’s most important turning points.
384 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 11, 2010
13 people are currently reading
156 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
March 12, 2012
I found this to be a very uneven work, which I suppose isn't surprising given that it is a collection of essays rather than a single unified work. Even if one allows for that, there were still areas where this book disappoints.
In the introduction, Mr. Moten implies a common set of questions that each of the essayists agreed to consider as they prepared their contributions. I can only surmise that these were, as Capt. Barbossa might say, "more guidelines than actual rules" as on several of the pieces these questions are only tangentially addressed, if at all. This is disappointing if, like me, you purchased the book after having read the introduction hoping to see these questions answered.
My biggest problem with the book involves the chapter on the 1991 Gulf War. The author chosen to write this chapter is Andrew Bacevich, an outspoken critic of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and American militarism generally. My problem is less about the choice of Bacevich specifically, but on the lack of disclosure of Mr. Bacevich's biases on this subject. In addition to being an outspoken critic of military action in Iraq, Bacevich's son was killed in Iraq in 2007. I think readers are intelligent enough to judge for themselves to what extent, if any, the understandable grief and loss have colored Bacevich's views but readers are not given that opportunity. The fact is not even mentioned in the "about the contributors" page.
Bacevich's chapter drips with contempt for the seminal figures of the First Gulf War, particularly Schwartzkopf and Powell, a tone of disdain that is not evident in any of the other chapters of the book.
I think that there was an opportunity in this chapter to explore how the coalition's war aims were set; what the coalition was to do after the liberation of Kuwait was achieved with relatively little cost; what considerations were given to what the region would look like if Saddam were to fall; the less than satisfying arrangement that led to a decade of quasi-warfare with Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. These points get lost in Bacevich's haste to damn the swaggering militarism that the war (in his telling) unleashed. For anyone still recovering from the bruising fights over Iraq, Bacevich's retelling is a tiring, belabored read.
There are parts of this book that are excellent, and well worth reading. The chapter on Platsburgh and the War of 1812 were very well done. Likewise the chapter on the Vietnam war managed to walk an intelligent line between the standard conventional wisdom (the Viet Cong won the war at Tet) and the modern revisionist line (the war was still winnable if America had stayed the course). Not all of the chapters are as rewarding, however.
In the introduction, Mr. Moten implies a common set of questions that each of the essayists agreed to consider as they prepared their contributions. I can only surmise that these were, as Capt. Barbossa might say, "more guidelines than actual rules" as on several of the pieces these questions are only tangentially addressed, if at all. This is disappointing if, like me, you purchased the book after having read the introduction hoping to see these questions answered.
My biggest problem with the book involves the chapter on the 1991 Gulf War. The author chosen to write this chapter is Andrew Bacevich, an outspoken critic of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and American militarism generally. My problem is less about the choice of Bacevich specifically, but on the lack of disclosure of Mr. Bacevich's biases on this subject. In addition to being an outspoken critic of military action in Iraq, Bacevich's son was killed in Iraq in 2007. I think readers are intelligent enough to judge for themselves to what extent, if any, the understandable grief and loss have colored Bacevich's views but readers are not given that opportunity. The fact is not even mentioned in the "about the contributors" page.
Bacevich's chapter drips with contempt for the seminal figures of the First Gulf War, particularly Schwartzkopf and Powell, a tone of disdain that is not evident in any of the other chapters of the book.
I think that there was an opportunity in this chapter to explore how the coalition's war aims were set; what the coalition was to do after the liberation of Kuwait was achieved with relatively little cost; what considerations were given to what the region would look like if Saddam were to fall; the less than satisfying arrangement that led to a decade of quasi-warfare with Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. These points get lost in Bacevich's haste to damn the swaggering militarism that the war (in his telling) unleashed. For anyone still recovering from the bruising fights over Iraq, Bacevich's retelling is a tiring, belabored read.
There are parts of this book that are excellent, and well worth reading. The chapter on Platsburgh and the War of 1812 were very well done. Likewise the chapter on the Vietnam war managed to walk an intelligent line between the standard conventional wisdom (the Viet Cong won the war at Tet) and the modern revisionist line (the war was still winnable if America had stayed the course). Not all of the chapters are as rewarding, however.
September 27, 2022
I stumbled across this book at my local public library, having never heard of it before. I have also only heard of one of the contributors (Glatthaar), but haven't read any of his other works. This book is a collection of 14 essays about the final campaigns of wars involved the United States of America, and usually delve into the political aftermath. As is typical of essay collections by various authors, this one is a mixed bag, though generally good especially for the more obscure conflicts.
American Revolution - Yorktown: Not a good start. It felt unfocused. 0 of 1.
War of 1812 - Plattsburgh: Good focus on the Lake Champlain Campaign of 1814 and its influence on the negotiations at Ghent. 1 of 2.
Second Seminole War: A bit unusual, but interesting. It looks at how the last commander launched an innovative campaign to militarily end the war, but by the time that failed to produce decisive results the political landscape had shifted to make ending the war by unilateral declaration possible where it previously had not been. 2 of 3.
Mexican War: Winfield Scott's campaign to take Mexico City and subsequent negotiations with the tumultuous Mexican government. Interesting emphasis on Scott's largely successful efforts to protect his occupational force against guerillas and keep his men well-behaved as occupiers. Like the preceding essay, this felt like a fresh take. 3 of 4.
American Civil War - Appomattox: Felt a bit like the Yorktown chapter where it was taking took broad an approach without anything interesting to say on the topic. 3 of 5.
The Indian Wars: Probably the most unusual essay in the book. It looks at the entirety of Euro-American vs Native American conflict collectively, and treats Little Bighorn as the final campaign. In terms of being focused on the central theme of the book it was another miss due to going wide. However, unlike the Revolution or Civil War, I was pleasantly surprised the writer had some interesting things to say about the overall conflict so I'm giving it a point anyway. 4 of 6.
Philippines Insurrection: My favorite essay in the book. I didn't know a lot about this conflict so I found this to a really interesting chapter about this rare instance of successfully defeating a guerilla war. The writer also addressed why the lessons of this conflict were largely ignored. 5 of 7.
WW1 / Meuse-Argonne: A good summary of the offensive and how it was largely disconnected from the peace process. 6 of 8.
WW2 in Europe: Decent look at how military and political uncertainties dictated operations in western Germany. 7 of 9.
WW2 in the Pacific - Okinawa: Meh. 7 of 10.
Korean War: A very interesting study of using airpower as a negotiating tactic against the North Koreans and Chinese, with mixed results. 8 of 11.
Vietnam: Decent look at the disconnect between the military and the political, particularly under Nixon, and how unwinnable the whole mess was. I read Max Hastings' excellent book not long ago and this felt like the Cliff Notes version, which is fine in context of this book. 9 of 12.
The Cold War: I went in scratching my head how this would even be addressed. In short, decades of misunderstandings repeatedly ratcheted tensions, but finally Reagan and Gorbachev were the right people at the right time to talk the tensions down. This goes against the traditional "Reagan won the Cold War" narrative, in an interesting way. 10 of 13.
Gulf War: The final essay delves into a whole controversy about the end of the conflict that I wasn't aware of. 11 of 14.
Each essay ends with a helpful biographical essay of suggestions for further reading.
Moderate recommendation.
American Revolution - Yorktown: Not a good start. It felt unfocused. 0 of 1.
War of 1812 - Plattsburgh: Good focus on the Lake Champlain Campaign of 1814 and its influence on the negotiations at Ghent. 1 of 2.
Second Seminole War: A bit unusual, but interesting. It looks at how the last commander launched an innovative campaign to militarily end the war, but by the time that failed to produce decisive results the political landscape had shifted to make ending the war by unilateral declaration possible where it previously had not been. 2 of 3.
Mexican War: Winfield Scott's campaign to take Mexico City and subsequent negotiations with the tumultuous Mexican government. Interesting emphasis on Scott's largely successful efforts to protect his occupational force against guerillas and keep his men well-behaved as occupiers. Like the preceding essay, this felt like a fresh take. 3 of 4.
American Civil War - Appomattox: Felt a bit like the Yorktown chapter where it was taking took broad an approach without anything interesting to say on the topic. 3 of 5.
The Indian Wars: Probably the most unusual essay in the book. It looks at the entirety of Euro-American vs Native American conflict collectively, and treats Little Bighorn as the final campaign. In terms of being focused on the central theme of the book it was another miss due to going wide. However, unlike the Revolution or Civil War, I was pleasantly surprised the writer had some interesting things to say about the overall conflict so I'm giving it a point anyway. 4 of 6.
Philippines Insurrection: My favorite essay in the book. I didn't know a lot about this conflict so I found this to a really interesting chapter about this rare instance of successfully defeating a guerilla war. The writer also addressed why the lessons of this conflict were largely ignored. 5 of 7.
WW1 / Meuse-Argonne: A good summary of the offensive and how it was largely disconnected from the peace process. 6 of 8.
WW2 in Europe: Decent look at how military and political uncertainties dictated operations in western Germany. 7 of 9.
WW2 in the Pacific - Okinawa: Meh. 7 of 10.
Korean War: A very interesting study of using airpower as a negotiating tactic against the North Koreans and Chinese, with mixed results. 8 of 11.
Vietnam: Decent look at the disconnect between the military and the political, particularly under Nixon, and how unwinnable the whole mess was. I read Max Hastings' excellent book not long ago and this felt like the Cliff Notes version, which is fine in context of this book. 9 of 12.
The Cold War: I went in scratching my head how this would even be addressed. In short, decades of misunderstandings repeatedly ratcheted tensions, but finally Reagan and Gorbachev were the right people at the right time to talk the tensions down. This goes against the traditional "Reagan won the Cold War" narrative, in an interesting way. 10 of 13.
Gulf War: The final essay delves into a whole controversy about the end of the conflict that I wasn't aware of. 11 of 14.
Each essay ends with a helpful biographical essay of suggestions for further reading.
Moderate recommendation.
August 17, 2017
This is a volume of essays covering every major US war that focuses on how the last campaigns and decisions of the war affected the achievement of the war's aims. It also looks at the changes to those aims that occurred during the war. The intro essay lays out 6 principles that the essays are meant to illustrate, which they do in a loose way. Some of them are excellent, including the one on the "300 Years' War" with Indians, the Second Seminole War, the War of 1812, the Philippine American War, and WWII in the Pacific. Others, such as the one on the Cold War, don't really teach much that's new to fairly well-versed readers.
With all respect to the UNC professors in this volume, including my advisor (Hi!), I did prefer Gordon Rose's How Wars End to this book because Rose focuses much more on the endgame portion of major 20th century wars whereas these essays don't all give that much time to that critical phase. In other words, I learned more about war termination from Rose even though this volume probably summarized the conflicts better. Between War and Peace makes a good lecture/lesson plan-writing aide, but conceptually it doesn't go into the same depth in war termination and the problems of linking means and ends in the last phases of a war as Rose does. This might be a result of this volume being a product of many minds and Rose's only of one. Please don't kick me out of graduate school if you are reading this Drs. L and G. Okay, for real they aren't reading this.
With all respect to the UNC professors in this volume, including my advisor (Hi!), I did prefer Gordon Rose's How Wars End to this book because Rose focuses much more on the endgame portion of major 20th century wars whereas these essays don't all give that much time to that critical phase. In other words, I learned more about war termination from Rose even though this volume probably summarized the conflicts better. Between War and Peace makes a good lecture/lesson plan-writing aide, but conceptually it doesn't go into the same depth in war termination and the problems of linking means and ends in the last phases of a war as Rose does. This might be a result of this volume being a product of many minds and Rose's only of one. Please don't kick me out of graduate school if you are reading this Drs. L and G. Okay, for real they aren't reading this.
March 14, 2018
Well written series of essays by leading historians and military scholars discussing how America has ended wars from the American Revolution to Iraq. The feeling seems to be that we do well fighting the battles and militarily winning the wars but after that we tend to screw things up. With few exceptions we just don't know how to successfully conclude a war without causing additional problems. Of special interest was the last essay on the first Gulf War and how the author slammed "Storming Norman" and the Chairman oi the JCS, General Colin Powell; leveling on them all the problems associated with the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Makes you wonder why any of the senior military personnel and senior civilians appear to have not cracked open a history book and absorbed lessons learned from previous experiences.
Makes you wonder why any of the senior military personnel and senior civilians appear to have not cracked open a history book and absorbed lessons learned from previous experiences.
August 22, 2015
I enjoyed reading this book. It doesn't quite have the imprimatur of the US Army, but it is associated with high-level members of the US Army who don't seem to be extremist or out-of-step in any way.
To read a relatively brief high level description from a military perspective of America's series of wars was useful for me. Rather than stereotype the military as (pick your bad image), this presents a moderate institution subject to its civilian government while aware of and skilled at its important line of work.
I feel this book helped me to understand my nation and its place in the world.
To read a relatively brief high level description from a military perspective of America's series of wars was useful for me. Rather than stereotype the military as (pick your bad image), this presents a moderate institution subject to its civilian government while aware of and skilled at its important line of work.
I feel this book helped me to understand my nation and its place in the world.
August 18, 2011
While I appreciated the coverage of some of the more obscure conflicts in American history many of the chapters read as brief histories of the wars rather than addressing the problem of conflict termination. The book would have benefited from the addition of an analytic essay or two to try and draw lessons and themes out in a clearer and more useful fashion.
Currently Reading
September 16, 2012Got it on loan from the Fort Gordon library ... mostly interested in the chapter by Andrew Bacevich on the termination of the Gulf War.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews