[(Geometric Approaches to Differential Equations)] [Author: Peter J. Vassiliou] published on

by Antulio J. Echevarria II

Challenging several longstanding notions about the American way of war, this book examines US strategic and operational practice from 1775 to 2014. It surveys all major US wars from the War of Independence to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as most smaller US conflicts to determine what patterns, if any, existed in American uses of force. Contrary to many popular sentiments, Echevarria finds that the American way of war is not astrategic, apolitical, or defined by the use of overwhelming force. Instead, the American way of war was driven more by political considerations than military ones, and the amount of force employed was rarely overwhelming or decisive.As a scholar of Clausewitz, Echevarria borrows explicitly from the Prussian to describe the American way of war not only as an extension of US policy by other means, but also the continuation of US politics by those means. The book's focus on strategic and operational practice closes the gap between critiques of American strategic thinking and analyses of US campaigns. Echevarria discovers that most conceptions of American strategic culture fail to hold up to scrutiny, and that US operational practice has been closer to military science than to military art.Providing a fresh look at how America's leaders have used military force historically and what that may mean for the future, this book should be of interest to military practitioners and policymakers, students and scholars of military history and security studies, and general readers interested in military history and the future of military power.

Genres: History, Military Fiction, Military History, American History, War, Nonfiction

Paperback

First published April 21, 2014

Reviews

[Jefferson Berry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Echevarria, Antulio J. Reconsidering the American Way of War. [in English] Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2014.

Reconsidering the American Way of War claims the traditional “habits of mind” that have existed
in the strategic and operational practice of the US military throughout history are neither apolitical nor astrategic. Further, the spectrum of military strategies used throughout US history are far more diverse than annihilation and attrition. Echevarria has labeled these as ‘decapitation,’ ‘terror,’ ‘graduated pressure,’ ‘clear-hold-build’ (nation building), ‘counter insurgency,’ and (when combined with diplomacy) ‘divide & conquer’ and ‘carrot & stick.’

Responding to the subject’s dominant narrative, The American Way of War by Russel Weigley, Echevaria challenges not only its conclusions but its presentation as a history of ideas. The book focuses on action, not just thoughts and words. With “grounded narratives of America’s diverse wars and military action” Way of War examines common strategic themes in:


The Revolutionary War (1775-81)
Barbary Coast Wars (1784-1815)
War of 1812 (1812-15)
The Mexican War (1846-480
The Civil War (1861-65)
The Wars Against the Plains Indians (1865-98
The Spanish American War (1898)
The Philippine Insurrection (1899-1902)
The Boxer Rebellion (1900)
The Caribbean Wars (1903-34)
The Mexican Interventions (1914-17)
The First World War (1917-18)
Russian/Siberian Expeditions (1917-20)
The Second World War (1941-1945)
The Korean War (1950-53)
The Guatemalan Coup (1954)
The Cuban Invasion (1961)
The Vietnam War (1964-75)
El Salvador Intervention (1979-91)
Columbia Intervention (1978-2011)
Grenada Intervention (1983)
Operation Just Cause- Panama (1989)
Somalia (1992-94)
The First Gulf War-Desert Storm (1991)
Bosnia (1995)
Kosovo (1999)
Afghanistan (2001-2021)
Iraq (2003-2012)


These summaries of military operations are a good first look for further study. They are however sourced through secondary works; there is almost no citation of government documents. His thesis might unravel with one such category of documents: US defense spending as dominated by defense contractors. The US spends $700+ billion annually on its military; of this $445 billion is spent with contractors like Lockheed Martin ($72.3B), Raytheon (27.2B), General Dynamics Boeing, Northrup Grumman and others. (Robert Levinson, Bloomberg Government, 1/6/21). Certainly, military strategy and practice can’t exclude the legislative dynamic that makes this possible.

And Echevarria knows it. “The most important (factor) is an administration’s desire to reduce its political risk... As interesting as it would be to explore such dynamics, this book is an analysis of American military, not political, practice.” (pgs. 2-3). Where Echevarria does talk about politics, it is presidential, not legislative. What Eisenhower called ‘the military industrial complex’ (1.17.61) is entirely missing from this book. These politics represent “prioritized interests” not “collective interests.” (163) And the “Centers of Gravity” that presidents recognize in their ways of war are not reliant on public opinion. (173) The examples offered from Madison to Obama have very similar motives. (162-164).

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

A well argued critique of Russell Weigley, Echevarria argues that while Americans do draw on their past to devise ways of War, they have used many more strategies than the 2 demonstrated by Weigley. This is especially true of the numerous small conflicts undertaken by the Is in between major wars.

[Quincy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting read on the change of military history through American wars/involvements. Interesting read for anyone interested in military history and it’s relation to the shaping of America and its policies.

[Axel Koch · Rating 4 out of 5]

This type of military studies POV is not usually one from which I've studied American foreign policy, but it was ultimately a much more balanced, informative, and well-argued take than I had expected, convincingly situating American military activity on a historical continuum

[AJ Redden · Rating 4 out of 5]

A interesting a counter to Weigley's 1973 classic.

[John DeRosa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Combined with Nolan’s Allure of Battle, helps place a better perspective on the promises of decisive battle

[Hj Reichen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting perspective of US Military engagements across the country’s history.

[TheF7Pawn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This slender work is a masterful deconstruction of Weigley’s iconic The American Way of War (1973). In reconsidering it, Echevarria employs a broad (but not deep) historical sweep to compellingly demonstrate that Weigley’s conclusions do not hold up to close scrutiny. Thus, American military practice, is not apolitical or astrategic, but firmly grounded in both domestic and international political and strategic realities. If anything, Echevarria, who has a keen eye for the shortcomings and inconsistencies in US military practice, chides our leadership for championing operational art above operational science, believing that it will rescue us from numerical inferiority, distance, logistics, and the other hard numbers involved in military planning and operations. This misplaced faith in operational art, he correctly notes, has led us to a “way of battle” which equates victories at the operational level and below with victory in war. More importantly he is skeptical of “revolutions” in military affairs, which he properly labels as “expressions of art in the extreme,” which in turns deepens our faith in tactical and operational virtuosity. Although probably written for a narrow community of specialists, it stands alone as a good overview and primer on American military practice since the country’s founding. Recommended.

[Hans · Rating 3 out of 5]

Conventional and 'regular' warfare are misnomers according to this author and its about time we update our usages of them. The reality is that what is commonly considered conventional and regular is in fact quite irregular. The Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea and the Gulf War are normally held up as examples of conventional war, but they are in the minority. The US have been engaged in over 200 armed conflicts and only those 5 broke away from what the 'irregular' or Guerrilla warfare that the US has waged far more of.

The author believes this is crucial because it is that type of thinking 'regular' vs 'irregular' warfare that is continually being used as the reason for the US recent failures in Iraq and Afghanistan citing the US's lack of experience in those types of war. The reality is that the US has extensive history in irregular and guerrilla warfare and even became quite proficient at it.

The author also believe that rather than war being an extension of policy, it is instead an extension of politics and greatly affected by the internal debates within the US Government itself

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

Echevarria argues that the American way of war is much more broad, strategic and political than previously supposed. Historians need to consider all the small police actions, the Indian wars and "show the flag" moments and not just the large well know wars.

Why I started this book: Audio copy from my large professional reading list. Yes, please.

Why I finished it: Written as a critique of The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy, I think that I would have enjoyed this book more if I had read the other first. That being said, I do agree with Echevarria that when analyzing the American way of war, one needs to consider all uses of force and not just the big declared wars.

[Daniel Threlfall · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was expecting better. The work is a scholarly treatment of an academic subject known as "the American way of war." The author nimbly interacted with the relevant research, but painfully and ponderously submitted his original research and ideas.

The book might have been a little more interesting if the author didn't try so hard to write all his sentences in the passive voice. (Just about drove me nuts.)