What do you think?
Rate this book
For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012 by Allan R. Millett, Peter Maslowski, William B. Feis (2012) Paperback
This revised and expanded edition should be of interest to anyone interested in American military history, from the days of colonial militias to those of Desert Storm.
Paperback
First published November 1, 1984
120 people are currently reading
631 people want to read
About the author
Unknown Author
4m books468 followersBooks with known authors are imported from Amazon to this profile. Please do not merge this profile into Unknown.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
December 30, 2021
Four stars is an accomplishment. I love analogies, and the military provides some good ones, yet few quotes were extractable. Furthermore, the author asked for my attention for an immense amount of time.
Even so, the reader is addressed like a grown-up as the text helps to navigate continuity and changes in American military thought. I feel smarter and not wearied.
Even so, the reader is addressed like a grown-up as the text helps to navigate continuity and changes in American military thought. I feel smarter and not wearied.
December 8, 2021
HA I FINISHED IT.
I'm more proud of myself for getting through this than I am about finishing War and Peace. XD
I'm going to be nice and give this four stars, because even though my eyes glazed over for most of it, it's crammed full of information which I suppose would be valuable to someone actually paying attention. If most of that information went through my head like water through a sieve, that's my fault, not the book's. It serves its purpose, is what I'm saying.
I'm more proud of myself for getting through this than I am about finishing War and Peace. XD
I'm going to be nice and give this four stars, because even though my eyes glazed over for most of it, it's crammed full of information which I suppose would be valuable to someone actually paying attention. If most of that information went through my head like water through a sieve, that's my fault, not the book's. It serves its purpose, is what I'm saying.
May 2, 2020
I had read the first edition of Allan Millett and Peter Maslowski's book back when I was in college. While I can't remember what my impression was of it back then, I proceeded through the next three decades of my life without feeling the need to revisit it. recently, however, I had reason to reread it, and I'm glad I did.
Now in a third edition, Millett and Maslowski have been joined as co-authors by William Feis, a specialist in the Civil War era. For the most part, little changed beyond additional coverage of American military history up to 2014 and the elimination of the very useful bibliography from the first edition (supposedly it was moved online, but the link provided in the book is dead). Yet rereading it I came to appreciate just how excellent of a job they did in covering the military over the centuries of the nation's existence. It's especially impressive considering their scope: while most military histories are happy to confine themselves to accounts of campaigns and commanders, the authors have provided an extraordinarily well-rounded account that addresses policymaking, military-civil relations, and the development of military theory. In this respect their book is not just a military history in terms of an account of America's wars, but of the role of the military throughout the nation's history.
By the time I reached the end of the book, I had a newfound appreciation for the authors' achievement. While not without its flaws — leaving out the bibliography proved a mistake, while the two chapters on the Vietnam War are overdue to be consolidated into a single one — it is an impressive book that remains the single best work for anyone interested in learning about America's military and how it shaped the country it built and defended.
Now in a third edition, Millett and Maslowski have been joined as co-authors by William Feis, a specialist in the Civil War era. For the most part, little changed beyond additional coverage of American military history up to 2014 and the elimination of the very useful bibliography from the first edition (supposedly it was moved online, but the link provided in the book is dead). Yet rereading it I came to appreciate just how excellent of a job they did in covering the military over the centuries of the nation's existence. It's especially impressive considering their scope: while most military histories are happy to confine themselves to accounts of campaigns and commanders, the authors have provided an extraordinarily well-rounded account that addresses policymaking, military-civil relations, and the development of military theory. In this respect their book is not just a military history in terms of an account of America's wars, but of the role of the military throughout the nation's history.
By the time I reached the end of the book, I had a newfound appreciation for the authors' achievement. While not without its flaws — leaving out the bibliography proved a mistake, while the two chapters on the Vietnam War are overdue to be consolidated into a single one — it is an impressive book that remains the single best work for anyone interested in learning about America's military and how it shaped the country it built and defended.
July 30, 2018
For the Common Defense is a history of the United States military and its evolution from basically rounding up some village guys with guns to rounding up millions of guys from across the country and beyond with bigger guns and other high tech instruments of destruction. It was surprising to learn that the military was such a low priority for the United States in the past and how it became the most powerful military in the world. What wasn't surprising, but was very disappointing, was how much politics played a role in the development of the military. In all, it's a fascinating overview. I would recommend.
April 1, 2009
Those looking for a bird's eye view of U.S. military history and policy may find this interesting, but given the book's scope (1500s to 1970s) it is an understandably broad brush picture. The author does a decent job at providing some of the social and political context guiding military policy makers, while avoiding overt judgement of the efficacy of their decisions.
December 20, 2021
Required reading for the military set. A serviceable, if dry, survey of the American military.
A mainstay of "professional" and Command and General Staff College reading lists, "For the Common Defense" occupies a space similar to the novel "Once An Eagle." In that it's on every list yet I remain convinced nobody has read it. Both are perfectly fine examples of their genre (historical fiction and broad general military history), yet neither are particularly transcendent.
In the case of "For the Common Defense," we have a perfectly decent, well-researched, and fairly thorough survey of "the American military" from the Continental Army to the War on Terror (since we're working on the 2012 third edition) that never fully decides on a narrative or theme. Each chapter covers a period of time marked by major wars or interregnum periods.
During "hot" periods, the narrative focuses on battles and leaders (as expected). During "cold" periods, it focuses on logistical, legislative, procurement, and manpower issues. This is where the book is simultaneously the most interesting and most dull. Learning about the intricacies of legislation detailing the number of hours reservists need to drill is both critical to understanding the military and stultifyingly dull.
I am thankful for this book for no other reason than that it does into far more detail than I ever thought possible on the multiple pieces of legislation that helped develop the National Guard and Reserve forces. In that alone, there's value here. The fairly disconnected chapter approach disrupts any narrative thrust the book might otherwise have. To the extent the authors don't force a narrative on the reader, that's good, but the result is more a series of vignettes than an overriding theme.
One recurring element is the general American discontent with standing armies and the constant push/pull between the populace (through its elected representatives) to scale back the standing force and the proponents of a more robust defense establishment. That the pro-defense side very thoroughly wins that argument (with all the budgetary implications that brings) is slightly disconcerting.
And that's what this book really is for: referential value. Is this a gripping narrative? No. Does this tell a comprehensive (or even coherent) story of the American military? Also, no. Does it provide a decent survey of American history from the perspective of the American military? Generally yes. As required reading goes, you could do better, but you could also do worse.
A mainstay of "professional" and Command and General Staff College reading lists, "For the Common Defense" occupies a space similar to the novel "Once An Eagle." In that it's on every list yet I remain convinced nobody has read it. Both are perfectly fine examples of their genre (historical fiction and broad general military history), yet neither are particularly transcendent.
In the case of "For the Common Defense," we have a perfectly decent, well-researched, and fairly thorough survey of "the American military" from the Continental Army to the War on Terror (since we're working on the 2012 third edition) that never fully decides on a narrative or theme. Each chapter covers a period of time marked by major wars or interregnum periods.
During "hot" periods, the narrative focuses on battles and leaders (as expected). During "cold" periods, it focuses on logistical, legislative, procurement, and manpower issues. This is where the book is simultaneously the most interesting and most dull. Learning about the intricacies of legislation detailing the number of hours reservists need to drill is both critical to understanding the military and stultifyingly dull.
I am thankful for this book for no other reason than that it does into far more detail than I ever thought possible on the multiple pieces of legislation that helped develop the National Guard and Reserve forces. In that alone, there's value here. The fairly disconnected chapter approach disrupts any narrative thrust the book might otherwise have. To the extent the authors don't force a narrative on the reader, that's good, but the result is more a series of vignettes than an overriding theme.
One recurring element is the general American discontent with standing armies and the constant push/pull between the populace (through its elected representatives) to scale back the standing force and the proponents of a more robust defense establishment. That the pro-defense side very thoroughly wins that argument (with all the budgetary implications that brings) is slightly disconcerting.
And that's what this book really is for: referential value. Is this a gripping narrative? No. Does this tell a comprehensive (or even coherent) story of the American military? Also, no. Does it provide a decent survey of American history from the perspective of the American military? Generally yes. As required reading goes, you could do better, but you could also do worse.
June 9, 2020
Originally published in 1984 by The Free Press.
Note: This is a review of the original version of this book, published in 1984 and ending with the first Reagan administration. It has been expanded and updated to include events up to 2012.
Way back in my undergrad days at Indiana University I took a class called American Military History. It was taught by a visiting professor from West Point and this book was an excellent choice for the text for the class.
For 30+ years I have carried this book around with me - through 5 different moves and who knows how many book shelves this book was the anchor of my history section because it is quite beefy. But, I decided it was time to clear out some books. Technically, this book was a re-read but I didn't really remember anything from all of those years ago so...
The book starts with colonial defense and moves along with the same format up through the early 1980's. There is a chapter about a war or conflict followed by a chapter on the interwar years followed by a chapter on the next war or conflict. Each chapter is about 30 pages with a bibliography, with the exception of World War II and the Civil War - they are each covered by two chapters.
Generally speaking, the war chapters are more interesting than the interwar chapters. The interwar chapters can get bogged down in detailed discussion of the upper level command structure of the military (Joint Chiefs of Staff, the role of the Secretary of War/Defense, etc.) , but I found the interwar chapter that covered Reconstruction and the Gilded Age to be one of the best in the book.
It is striking to read how American defense policy changed radically after World War II and the book provides little discussion of those changes, it just notes that they happened.
I rate this book 4 stars out of 5.
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2020...
Note: This is a review of the original version of this book, published in 1984 and ending with the first Reagan administration. It has been expanded and updated to include events up to 2012.
Way back in my undergrad days at Indiana University I took a class called American Military History. It was taught by a visiting professor from West Point and this book was an excellent choice for the text for the class.
For 30+ years I have carried this book around with me - through 5 different moves and who knows how many book shelves this book was the anchor of my history section because it is quite beefy. But, I decided it was time to clear out some books. Technically, this book was a re-read but I didn't really remember anything from all of those years ago so...
The book starts with colonial defense and moves along with the same format up through the early 1980's. There is a chapter about a war or conflict followed by a chapter on the interwar years followed by a chapter on the next war or conflict. Each chapter is about 30 pages with a bibliography, with the exception of World War II and the Civil War - they are each covered by two chapters.
Generally speaking, the war chapters are more interesting than the interwar chapters. The interwar chapters can get bogged down in detailed discussion of the upper level command structure of the military (Joint Chiefs of Staff, the role of the Secretary of War/Defense, etc.) , but I found the interwar chapter that covered Reconstruction and the Gilded Age to be one of the best in the book.
It is striking to read how American defense policy changed radically after World War II and the book provides little discussion of those changes, it just notes that they happened.
I rate this book 4 stars out of 5.
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2020...
July 24, 2025
One-stop shop for history on military organization, technology, funding, key operations, and some political squabbling. Would highly recommend.
March 19, 2016
An amazingly detailed and accurate look at US military history by two of the leading professors in the field.
Don't be surprised if you find that its dry, it is a textbook after all. Still, for the military enthusiast I would say its a must-read for its comprehnsiveness and analyses.
Don't be surprised if you find that its dry, it is a textbook after all. Still, for the military enthusiast I would say its a must-read for its comprehnsiveness and analyses.
Read
December 17, 2010Very detailed history of the building of the American empire. Great detail of just how important the Spanish-American War was to the current status as America as world policeman.
December 18, 2017
I had read the first half of the book for one online course. I finished the back half of the book for another online course. It was a very interesting book, and has an enormous amount of historical detail and information in it. It was hard to believe how much "stuff" occurred over time in relation to the American military. While it was interesting to read, there were times where it did seem a little long (I can only assume it was due to the information overload of each chapter). Each chapter covers a specific range of American military history.
The authors do a good job of relating how the military affected and influenced the American civilian culture and how the civilian leaders influenced and affected the military culture. One thing that really stood out to me was how ill-prepared the American military has been for each major conflict. It was really crazy to me, to read about what was involved for the American military to be able to fight in various conflicts with which it became embroiled. It was really nuts! The military had to be expanded, the men had to be trained, and both supplies and war materials had to be obtained in order for the American soldiers to be able to fight. Even then, it seemed like it took a bit of time before the military "go its act together" and soldiers stopped dying needlessly due to lack of training and supplies.
Prior to the late 1800s the United States of America was not an imperialistic nation like the European powers. The authors hypothesize that this was because the American continent had not been fully "conquered" and taken over by the United States, which kept our nation attention focused "inward" and not "expanding outward." That would change after the Spanish-American War. It was during the Spanish-American War that the United States saw an enormous amount of expansion as it acquired former Spanish territories (including the Philippines and some other islands in the Pacific). After these territories were acquired, American became a bit more imperialistic in nature
The book does a nice job of describing how the United States expanded beyond its shores and became a global power, how it started attempting to influence "the world stage" before it had the global presence it would develop at the turn of the 1800s into the 1900s. It was fascinating to read, that is for sure!
Overall, it was a very interesting book. It was quite indepth and filled with an enormous amount of information in each chapter. I really enjoyed reading this book.
The authors do a good job of relating how the military affected and influenced the American civilian culture and how the civilian leaders influenced and affected the military culture. One thing that really stood out to me was how ill-prepared the American military has been for each major conflict. It was really crazy to me, to read about what was involved for the American military to be able to fight in various conflicts with which it became embroiled. It was really nuts! The military had to be expanded, the men had to be trained, and both supplies and war materials had to be obtained in order for the American soldiers to be able to fight. Even then, it seemed like it took a bit of time before the military "go its act together" and soldiers stopped dying needlessly due to lack of training and supplies.
Prior to the late 1800s the United States of America was not an imperialistic nation like the European powers. The authors hypothesize that this was because the American continent had not been fully "conquered" and taken over by the United States, which kept our nation attention focused "inward" and not "expanding outward." That would change after the Spanish-American War. It was during the Spanish-American War that the United States saw an enormous amount of expansion as it acquired former Spanish territories (including the Philippines and some other islands in the Pacific). After these territories were acquired, American became a bit more imperialistic in nature
The book does a nice job of describing how the United States expanded beyond its shores and became a global power, how it started attempting to influence "the world stage" before it had the global presence it would develop at the turn of the 1800s into the 1900s. It was fascinating to read, that is for sure!
Overall, it was a very interesting book. It was quite indepth and filled with an enormous amount of information in each chapter. I really enjoyed reading this book.
June 12, 2025
I dove into this book for a nice brush-up on U.S. military history. It covers a long period of time, over four centuries, so there is a lot of material to cover here.
I felt as though the authors did a good job of giving all the major conflicts adequate coverage. But I have to say, as a pure reading book, it is dry as a bone. The tone is highly academic, which is understandable enough given the authors' backgrounds, but it seemed like every other page had at least a paragraph or two of rote statistics, about the size of the peacetime reserves in X fiscal year, the number of volunteers called up in X state's Guard, the defense budget over X amount of years....it's all good info, don't get me wrong, but riveting reading it is not.
I also believe that some of the chapters were just too dang long. Especially in the Vietnam and War on Terror chapters, one section of a chapter could harp on three or four different topics easily, when appropriate section headings might have broken the reading up into more digestible chunks. As it is, many of the book's chapters feel as though they go on and on, and meander through countless paragraphs about different facets of the conflicts that more than deserved their own section.
Also, let's talk about the last chapter, about the War on Terror. It drips with contempt for the Bush administration's justification for and handling of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, to a degree I found inappropriate for a book that seems to try quite hard to be a neutral academic volume. It isn't that the Bush administration doesn't deserve said contempt, but the whole last chapter reads more like a breathless Reddit rant than a work of history, what with all the "neocon" labels being thrown around. I get the frustration, but do better guys, do better.
Aside from those gripes, it is a balanced narrative, and has lots of good research information. A page-turner it is not, but if you're aware of that going in, you will enjoy it more.
I felt as though the authors did a good job of giving all the major conflicts adequate coverage. But I have to say, as a pure reading book, it is dry as a bone. The tone is highly academic, which is understandable enough given the authors' backgrounds, but it seemed like every other page had at least a paragraph or two of rote statistics, about the size of the peacetime reserves in X fiscal year, the number of volunteers called up in X state's Guard, the defense budget over X amount of years....it's all good info, don't get me wrong, but riveting reading it is not.
I also believe that some of the chapters were just too dang long. Especially in the Vietnam and War on Terror chapters, one section of a chapter could harp on three or four different topics easily, when appropriate section headings might have broken the reading up into more digestible chunks. As it is, many of the book's chapters feel as though they go on and on, and meander through countless paragraphs about different facets of the conflicts that more than deserved their own section.
Also, let's talk about the last chapter, about the War on Terror. It drips with contempt for the Bush administration's justification for and handling of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, to a degree I found inappropriate for a book that seems to try quite hard to be a neutral academic volume. It isn't that the Bush administration doesn't deserve said contempt, but the whole last chapter reads more like a breathless Reddit rant than a work of history, what with all the "neocon" labels being thrown around. I get the frustration, but do better guys, do better.
Aside from those gripes, it is a balanced narrative, and has lots of good research information. A page-turner it is not, but if you're aware of that going in, you will enjoy it more.
June 25, 2021
For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012 by Allan Reed Millett, Peter Maslowski, and William Feis is an incredibly capable survey of US military history. This is a story of the intersection between domestic politics and force projection, of competing personalities, and of a restless population. For me, this was a walk down memory lane. One could almost make this one of the reference texts for an introduction to strategic studies course. I wouldn't recommend it as one's first read in military history - its length and its breadth is enough to protect it from that prospect - but it is definitely something to be consulted on one's journey. Some of the chapters of this book will read as only a surface level treatment of affairs on the ground, and even for a military history, there is much of the economic and political landscape that doesn't even get a mention. A friend of mine said that he found the book simple, and a bit pro-America. I can see that as a critique that someone might have. Overall though, I think this was a good book and worth reading.
85/100
85/100
April 1, 2024
Broad in scope, dated regarding recent historical interpretation, and uneven in depth, For the Common Defense is still an educational and worthwhile read for those who appreciate military history. The book reads as a collection of individual essays that cover different eras of American military history, and shines in the early chapters. I learned a considerable amount regarding the early militia system, and those with a piqued interest can review the bibliography at the end of each chapter to find additional resources.
Beginning around the Korean War chapter, the interpretation of certain historical moments would appreciate a refresh. The Cold War chapter (specifically around the Cuban Missile Crisis subsection) lacks context that has since been publicized since the books publication in the 1990's, and the assertion that America won with minimal diplomatic overturns is out of date. Additionally, the fondness of the Reagan presidency teetered toward biased.
Regardless, you will learn from this book. So long as you have a minimal interest in the military history, it is a worthwhile read.
Beginning around the Korean War chapter, the interpretation of certain historical moments would appreciate a refresh. The Cold War chapter (specifically around the Cuban Missile Crisis subsection) lacks context that has since been publicized since the books publication in the 1990's, and the assertion that America won with minimal diplomatic overturns is out of date. Additionally, the fondness of the Reagan presidency teetered toward biased.
Regardless, you will learn from this book. So long as you have a minimal interest in the military history, it is a worthwhile read.
November 19, 2019
For the Common Defense is a history of the United States military and its evolution from basically rounding up some villagers with guns and no experience to rounding up millions of guys from across the country, creating the best and most powerful military in the worlds history. The history if the military is something id never think id find fascinating because from the outside and from someone coming in that doesn't really know much about the military sees big weapons, men and women in uniform and a hierarchy that must be respected. But for me the biggest eye opener of US military history is the fact that the government took every day farmers with zero military or gun experience and turned them into passionate warriors that would do anything for their country. The evolution of military strategy is absolutely fascinating. Just try to imagine you being a farmer one day with no military experience, then 5 years later you are a solider ready to go into battle. The strategic evolution is absolutely amazing.
April 27, 2023
A textbook for a History of the US Military class I audited in winter/spring 2023.
This is good stuff. 700 pages. 1607 to 2012. The generals. The technology. The policy. The organizational issues. The wars. The battles. The successes. The mistakes. The statistics. And the authors editorialize...particulary on the events of the 21st century.
The book is chronological, broken into the chapters one might expect. The authors take the time to provide the background you need to understand the why's, wherefore's and particular challenges of each event before providing a decent amount of detail on the engagement themselves.
We've had a military since before we were a country. We have participated in hundreds of small and large conflicts, despite being isolated here in a safe place with protective oceans and friendly neighbors. We spend around $1 trillion per year on our military and our foreign adventures. Now I know a whole lot more about how and why.
This is good stuff. 700 pages. 1607 to 2012. The generals. The technology. The policy. The organizational issues. The wars. The battles. The successes. The mistakes. The statistics. And the authors editorialize...particulary on the events of the 21st century.
The book is chronological, broken into the chapters one might expect. The authors take the time to provide the background you need to understand the why's, wherefore's and particular challenges of each event before providing a decent amount of detail on the engagement themselves.
We've had a military since before we were a country. We have participated in hundreds of small and large conflicts, despite being isolated here in a safe place with protective oceans and friendly neighbors. We spend around $1 trillion per year on our military and our foreign adventures. Now I know a whole lot more about how and why.
September 23, 2020
A marvelous review of American defense policy at the highest level: What kind of was should we prepare to fight? What kind of forces do we need? Should they be full-time or part-time? Federal or state? How should we prepare for mobilization in case of war? Actual conduct of wars is covered only in high-level summary.
The only problem is a rather downbeat ending after the Vietnam War. The failure of Carter's idealism and then his rearmament, followed by Reagan's, are briefly covered but not in the same depth as previous periods. The reader is left with a sense of floundering, like there was no direction to American defense policy. Maybe there wasn't, but I don't think so, having served during that period.
The only problem is a rather downbeat ending after the Vietnam War. The failure of Carter's idealism and then his rearmament, followed by Reagan's, are briefly covered but not in the same depth as previous periods. The reader is left with a sense of floundering, like there was no direction to American defense policy. Maybe there wasn't, but I don't think so, having served during that period.
September 17, 2017
An extremely valuable, authoritative history. As it should, Millett's book teaches as much about Congress's role in national defense and about major organizational issues that bear upon the functioning of the military as it does on generals and battles.
More of this information should be considered baseline knowledge to be taught in schools, so that members of the public can be better informed about the decisions their representatives face regarding the military, and we can better avoid repeating past mistakes.
More of this information should be considered baseline knowledge to be taught in schools, so that members of the public can be better informed about the decisions their representatives face regarding the military, and we can better avoid repeating past mistakes.
May 9, 2020
An incredible resource to get a broad understanding of the history of the United States military, the evolution of its policies, and its involvement in conflicts from pre-revolutionary War through the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars. For the most part the author's do a good job at remaining balanced in their approach to dissecting the politics behind these military conflicts, but in the latter chapters they use a bit more opinions/bias and I would like from a textbook.
March 27, 2017
This book provides an excellent story about the history of the American Military, and shows us the true horrors that American veterans suffered. I loved this book, and it inspired my learning about the US Military.
February 13, 2020
A good survey text of most of the wars America has been in, good for a high level overview. Spent a lot of time talking about the revolution and very little on 20th century wars. I suppose if I wanted more detail I could reach a book specific to that war.
July 3, 2017
An excellent primer on US military history. Works well as a textbook for a US military history survey course.
June 22, 2019
Only negative is that it's and older edition.
September 23, 2019
A straight forward look at America's wars
November 29, 2022
Full of great information on military history and strategy much applicable to leaders of all backgrounds
August 11, 2023
Exceptional
December 27, 2016
I might never have read this book, but for an online course I took about the Civil War. We read maybe three chapters from this book, but it interested me enough to finish it after the class was over. It was well written, in my opinion, and it did hold my interest throughout most of the book. There were some parts that were hard to press through toward the end, but it was worth it in the end. It looks at not only the "military" but also how [some] aspects of "civilian life" were impacted [or not] by the growth of the military over time. It spans history from the start of the colonization of America until 2012. It's a lot of history to cover, especially with its taking into account the 'non-war years' in conjunction with the 'war years.'
It was interesting to learn how small the United States' "standing army" was for so much of American history. Yes, the numbers swelled during the Civil War, but not only was the US military slashed after the Civil War, it was subsequent conflicts that forced leaders to realize that a larger army was required in order to meet the changing needs of a growing nation. It was the Spanish-American War that showed the nation would need to be able to call upon better-trained troops as opposed to relying upon conscripts and the draft to meet the nation's needs.
About the "military-industrial complex":
I think the authors do a nice job showing how important it is to ensure the military has enough personnel to be able to do the job expected of them. In recent years, the US military has faced numerous cuts in numbers of people enlisted, yet is expected to handle an increasing number of situations. The military is trying to reduce the number of soldiers, airmen, and sailors by utilizing technology, which is good up to a point, but at some point there will not be enough personnel for basic jobs to be completed because of being overworked and understaffed. The easiest way to save on money is to 'cut the staff', but that also makes it more difficult to fulfill the expectations placed upon military personnel [even if the Reserves and National Guard are called upon to assist the US Military around the world].
I thought it was a well-written book. It had a good flow to it. It also has a wealth of information; there is literally too much to absorb in one reading. I am glad I read it.
It was interesting to learn how small the United States' "standing army" was for so much of American history. Yes, the numbers swelled during the Civil War, but not only was the US military slashed after the Civil War, it was subsequent conflicts that forced leaders to realize that a larger army was required in order to meet the changing needs of a growing nation. It was the Spanish-American War that showed the nation would need to be able to call upon better-trained troops as opposed to relying upon conscripts and the draft to meet the nation's needs.
About the "military-industrial complex":
I think the authors do a nice job showing how important it is to ensure the military has enough personnel to be able to do the job expected of them. In recent years, the US military has faced numerous cuts in numbers of people enlisted, yet is expected to handle an increasing number of situations. The military is trying to reduce the number of soldiers, airmen, and sailors by utilizing technology, which is good up to a point, but at some point there will not be enough personnel for basic jobs to be completed because of being overworked and understaffed. The easiest way to save on money is to 'cut the staff', but that also makes it more difficult to fulfill the expectations placed upon military personnel [even if the Reserves and National Guard are called upon to assist the US Military around the world].
I thought it was a well-written book. It had a good flow to it. It also has a wealth of information; there is literally too much to absorb in one reading. I am glad I read it.
September 17, 2012
I use this book for a course I teach on American History called The American Military Experience. It covers the period from the Colonial Era up until the Gulf War. It packs a ton of information into a concise history of our nation's military exploits, but is one of the best I have read on the subject. It can tend to jump around though, and I've found the students can get confused with the dates and the years on occasion, but overall it is a great book and it's very readable, not dry or boring as some history books are.
October 19, 2013
This book was actually read for a course that I took a few years back (Military History). The book is used as a text book, but if you want a complete understanding of the American Military Machine. This book summarizes the beginning of the American Military from colonial times and works through periods of conflict. This book is an excellent reference book for a quick overview of the various military engagements that the United States has been involved in.
March 6, 2014
This was required reading for a course I took in US Military History. It is a survey of US military history, and therefore does not go into any great detail on any one segment of that history. In comparing it with another survey volume, the the US Government publication, "American Military History" used in many college ROTC courses, "For the Common Defense" is more readable and less biased toward the military. I highly recommend it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews