What do you think?
Rate this book
God Forgives, Brothers Don't: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood
In the tradition of Sebastian Junger’s Tribe and Chris Hedges’s classic War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, a powerful investigation
into the fraught history and ominous future of military education in the United States, and how it formed and fuels increasingly volatile strains of American masculinity.
Thanks to the prevalence of Boy Scouts, military schools, service academies, JROTC, ROTC, plus other networks of funding and influence, the military has secured a dominant position in the American educational system. This has given the brass outsized power in shaping our youth and, by extension, society at large. As investigative journalist Jasper Craven powerfully demonstrates in these pages, the military has long defined American masculinity and often fosters its most toxic traits.
Craven makes this case by revisiting American military history—beginning with the American Revolution. The birth of our nation required a new masculine ideal, which was crafted in the image of America’s most beloved founding George Washington. During the brutality of the Civil War, Craven traces the parallel violence in military hazing culture, and the deeply prejudicial culture at places like West Point, which reared Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other famed Confederates.
The first and second World Wars escalated the need for battle-ready youth, and briefly resulted in a relatively noble male archetype, while the Cold War precipitated backlash, resentment, and trauma. This era also marked the beginning of the Christian right’s growing interest in military schools as upholding a patriarchal and fatalistic version of manhood. Vietnam and the anti-war movement also sparked panic around “the death of honor,” and an increasingly distrustful attitude towards institutions, fueling the rise of the lying, lawless operator, embodied by military school graduates like William Westmoreland and Oliver North.
Lastly, Craven brings us through the wars in the Middle East and up through today, where the military has further burrowed into civilian education via STEM and other avenues. Meanwhile, policies like “don’t ask, don’t tell” and a campaign of Islamophobia has suffused a new manhood that is defined by its ability to both diminish and dehumanize “the other,” while also being self-destructive.
Part sweeping military history, part journalistic investigation, God Forgives, Brothers Don’t lifts the veil on the harmful world of military schools and provides essential context and nuance to the ongoing debate on American masculinity.
Thanks to the prevalence of Boy Scouts, military schools, service academies, JROTC, ROTC, plus other networks of funding and influence, the military has secured a dominant position in the American educational system. This has given the brass outsized power in shaping our youth and, by extension, society at large. As investigative journalist Jasper Craven powerfully demonstrates in these pages, the military has long defined American masculinity and often fosters its most toxic traits.
Craven makes this case by revisiting American military history—beginning with the American Revolution. The birth of our nation required a new masculine ideal, which was crafted in the image of America’s most beloved founding George Washington. During the brutality of the Civil War, Craven traces the parallel violence in military hazing culture, and the deeply prejudicial culture at places like West Point, which reared Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, and other famed Confederates.
The first and second World Wars escalated the need for battle-ready youth, and briefly resulted in a relatively noble male archetype, while the Cold War precipitated backlash, resentment, and trauma. This era also marked the beginning of the Christian right’s growing interest in military schools as upholding a patriarchal and fatalistic version of manhood. Vietnam and the anti-war movement also sparked panic around “the death of honor,” and an increasingly distrustful attitude towards institutions, fueling the rise of the lying, lawless operator, embodied by military school graduates like William Westmoreland and Oliver North.
Lastly, Craven brings us through the wars in the Middle East and up through today, where the military has further burrowed into civilian education via STEM and other avenues. Meanwhile, policies like “don’t ask, don’t tell” and a campaign of Islamophobia has suffused a new manhood that is defined by its ability to both diminish and dehumanize “the other,” while also being self-destructive.
Part sweeping military history, part journalistic investigation, God Forgives, Brothers Don’t lifts the veil on the harmful world of military schools and provides essential context and nuance to the ongoing debate on American masculinity.
1 pages, Audio CD
Published May 19, 2026
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
April 5, 2026
this book is a well-researched and fascinating investigation into the development of american military education and the cultivation of a rugged, violent masculinity rooted in nationalism. jasper craven draws on historical archives as well as his own interviews to uncover the dark realities of our military’s educational institutions, as well as its influence over civilian schools & universities and the government writ large.
it was really jarring and insidious to see the ways in which the military’s pedagogical approach has poisoned civilian education. the sudden push toward STEM education was all in service of the us military’s needs, for example.
thanks to jasper and simon & schuster for the advance copy!
it was really jarring and insidious to see the ways in which the military’s pedagogical approach has poisoned civilian education. the sudden push toward STEM education was all in service of the us military’s needs, for example.
thanks to jasper and simon & schuster for the advance copy!
August 9, 2026
an always brutal, sometimes cartoonish, and ultimately soberly optimistic tour through the halls in which america’s legions of grinning prospective ghilman are, through forms of bullying and abuse so administratively mastered that neither “bullying” nor “abuse” is a sufficient term, vivisected into omnicidal killing machines. though God Forgives, Brothers Don’t benefits from a huge array of vibrant, ghoulish characters more so than, for instance, a book about the political history of school lunch, it’s predominantly a delineation of nation-state education policy that just happens to focus on US military academies. (that’s not to say that entities, which i mean in the most dehumanizing sense, like Linda McMahon and RFK Jr. aren’t ghoulishly vibrant: we’re just not yet at a point where Sodexo execs are literally standing in front of an american flag telling a convention of university presidents that it’s only bosco sticks and prison food from hereon out.) Jasper Craven’s commitment to dissecting these institutions and their yield, both ideological and human, reminded me a lot of how John Krakauer handles the University of Montana: almost universally, he finds that individual actors are more frequently hamstrung by generations of decreasingly competent, legible responses to bad policy than commanded by their own bad intentions, but--this is the important part--are far more frequently too enrobed in years of petty spitefulness and a wrongheaded pursuit of justice, comradery, or the immutable goodness of desiring to fix broken shit to address their mounting sadism. check out the lone (so far) overwhelmingly negative review for a great example of this.
at West Point, this process naturally begins with pseudo-founder Sylvanus Thayer, a man whose dogged commitment to “discipline and subordination” stems from childhood torment and takes the shape of blunt cruelty rather than scientific interest, and metastasizes as his successors flaccidly attempt to regain an ever-ebbing state of toughness and rightness. what follows is pretty forthrightly evil. i can’t imagine that’s surprising for anyone reading this book: either the idea of military education itself is strictly malevolent for the sake of malevolence, strictly malevolent in service of a distant and amorphous good (“blood makes the grass grow”), or rendered plausibly okay after thorough laundering by land-grant institutions or blind faith in the idea of financial success as student success (the professional pedigrees of Craven’s patently vicious West Pointers, however uncommonly they’re brought up compared to all the sadism, are the stuff of an admissions director’s wet dream). in the book’s significantly more entertaining and informative first half, the military academies struggle for legitimacy, beset upon by a citizenry who nobly and reasonably rejects a standing army 1) with no apparent purpose other than conquest, 2) inculcating violence among children, and 3) acting under the enthusiastically supportive auspices of every governing structure in the nation. for the “blood makes the grass grow” set, i imagine the most surprising portion of this book is the discussion of the founding ideals of the american populace and how strongly they resist militarization, but maybe that just reinforces their conception of the human race as inherently ovine. if they stick it out, they’ll love the second half, in which the students and faculty throw in the towel and america becomes one big military academy.
as i implied above, the first half is pretty chronological: the military academies struggle to come into existence, get reorganized into allegiance-conferring factory floors, develop a corresponding culture and literature, face backlash, subdue and consume religious elements, then reckon with how they might best recast the floppy american empire they carefully pieced together into scrappable ingots. from there, Craven takes a stab at historiographically approved topics-based organization, covering gender, race, class, sexuality, childhood, religion, and policy; while loosely chronological, a lot of chapters include time skips that lend themselves to critics who might suggest Craven cherrypicks particularly grotesque details or isn’t representing his key figures in-context. the last few chapters attempt the inverse, cleaving strictly to the Trump admins and snagging nasty little nuggets throughout; namely, his decision to offhandedly discuss the Stoneman-Douglas shooting, at which the JROTC gunman wore a JROTC shirt, came off as both schizotypically overanalytical and needlessly downplaying the significance of that event within the overall narrative. (for the record, i think Craven could’ve been a bit more conspiratorial, but given that the military is actively trying to ban Seth Harp from existing i understand why he didn’t lean into that; that said, speaking selfishly as a former Hokie staff member, i wondered a lot about where Virginia Tech, a public institution more famous for its big 2007 whoopsie-doodle than its own status as a senior military college, fit into this story.) i would assume most of these problems stem from a lack of cohesive, public-facing research on the post-Vietnam military academies, which is why i excuse the glaring lack of a chapter on transgender cadets--i highly doubt the data is there, and i imagine there are few willing interviewees.
if Craven had limited himself temporally to the pre-Vietnam era, would i have been equally disappointed? yeah, probably. the volume of research here is staggering, indicative of an entire career spent gathering first-person accounts and cultivating expertise on some of the most secretive elements of our society, but the book still comes out to just under 300 pages. i would’ve liked a bit more. true to his background as a writer of articles rather than books, many of Craven’s chapters spend reasonably small portions of their word count reintroducing figures we’ve already met while spending unaccountably large portions re-unspooling hefty historical concepts or threads--his somewhat beat-by-beat descriptions of 9/11 and the first Trump campaign in chapters 14 and 18, respectively, are editorially inexcusable. what seems like a bigger editorial flub, however, is the lack of voice: TrueAnon listeners will recall Craven as an infectiously jittery, bombastically funny guy, capable of navigating the sheer grimness of these topics while also illuminating their absurd hilarity, a tone which has been almost completely sucked out of God Forgives, Brothers Don’t. if you’ve only read Craven’s written description of seminude Navy cadets partaking in their annual tradition of gayly climbing a lubed obelisk, couched in a chapter largely about homophobia in the military, listen to his interview with Brace Belden and Yung Chomsky: his verbal account is much more thorough, lucid, and entertaining. this kind of flattening-out of authorial voice is common to nonfiction and it sucks. i was also mildly upset that Craven’s (zoomer, methinks???) editors didn’t catch him erroneously referring to Drowning Pool’s arena metal standard “Bodies” as “Let the Bodies Hit the Floor.”
speaking of the TrueAnon book club, in my review of The Fort Bragg Cartel, i wrote, of Seth Harp’s demonic Special Forces commandos, that:
my hope was that God Forgives, Brothers Don’t would address this pessimistic aspiration, and i’m grateful to say that it does, functioning as a sort of intellectual prequel, a sort of bildungsroman narrative, to Harp’s realized, frenetic tale occupying the adult world of sorrow and interpersonal collapse Craven’s schools preclude. often, i felt that Craven’s descriptions of military academy grads stumbling into drug addiction, mental illness, and crime were too brief, but it takes an entirely different book to cover those transformations in-depth. obviously, the Fort Bragg operators aren’t exclusively, or even predominantly, ring-knockers, but Craven expertly details the illegible cycle of torment that makes them the way they are and makes their lifestyle so darkly alluring. whereas Harp’s narrative ended on an indomitably bureaucratic, ruthless, Kafkaesque note, Craven leaves us with a gentle portrait of WWII conscientious objectors building a truly disciplined world of the future, not through destruction, but through collaboration and kindness. i think many of us, including and especially myself, have been annoyed by meme depictions of a supposed non-toxic masculinity to the extent that we reject the concept entirely, but in his conclusion it earns a kind of life that i haven’t found expressed anywhere else. there might be some hope after all.
at West Point, this process naturally begins with pseudo-founder Sylvanus Thayer, a man whose dogged commitment to “discipline and subordination” stems from childhood torment and takes the shape of blunt cruelty rather than scientific interest, and metastasizes as his successors flaccidly attempt to regain an ever-ebbing state of toughness and rightness. what follows is pretty forthrightly evil. i can’t imagine that’s surprising for anyone reading this book: either the idea of military education itself is strictly malevolent for the sake of malevolence, strictly malevolent in service of a distant and amorphous good (“blood makes the grass grow”), or rendered plausibly okay after thorough laundering by land-grant institutions or blind faith in the idea of financial success as student success (the professional pedigrees of Craven’s patently vicious West Pointers, however uncommonly they’re brought up compared to all the sadism, are the stuff of an admissions director’s wet dream). in the book’s significantly more entertaining and informative first half, the military academies struggle for legitimacy, beset upon by a citizenry who nobly and reasonably rejects a standing army 1) with no apparent purpose other than conquest, 2) inculcating violence among children, and 3) acting under the enthusiastically supportive auspices of every governing structure in the nation. for the “blood makes the grass grow” set, i imagine the most surprising portion of this book is the discussion of the founding ideals of the american populace and how strongly they resist militarization, but maybe that just reinforces their conception of the human race as inherently ovine. if they stick it out, they’ll love the second half, in which the students and faculty throw in the towel and america becomes one big military academy.
as i implied above, the first half is pretty chronological: the military academies struggle to come into existence, get reorganized into allegiance-conferring factory floors, develop a corresponding culture and literature, face backlash, subdue and consume religious elements, then reckon with how they might best recast the floppy american empire they carefully pieced together into scrappable ingots. from there, Craven takes a stab at historiographically approved topics-based organization, covering gender, race, class, sexuality, childhood, religion, and policy; while loosely chronological, a lot of chapters include time skips that lend themselves to critics who might suggest Craven cherrypicks particularly grotesque details or isn’t representing his key figures in-context. the last few chapters attempt the inverse, cleaving strictly to the Trump admins and snagging nasty little nuggets throughout; namely, his decision to offhandedly discuss the Stoneman-Douglas shooting, at which the JROTC gunman wore a JROTC shirt, came off as both schizotypically overanalytical and needlessly downplaying the significance of that event within the overall narrative. (for the record, i think Craven could’ve been a bit more conspiratorial, but given that the military is actively trying to ban Seth Harp from existing i understand why he didn’t lean into that; that said, speaking selfishly as a former Hokie staff member, i wondered a lot about where Virginia Tech, a public institution more famous for its big 2007 whoopsie-doodle than its own status as a senior military college, fit into this story.) i would assume most of these problems stem from a lack of cohesive, public-facing research on the post-Vietnam military academies, which is why i excuse the glaring lack of a chapter on transgender cadets--i highly doubt the data is there, and i imagine there are few willing interviewees.
if Craven had limited himself temporally to the pre-Vietnam era, would i have been equally disappointed? yeah, probably. the volume of research here is staggering, indicative of an entire career spent gathering first-person accounts and cultivating expertise on some of the most secretive elements of our society, but the book still comes out to just under 300 pages. i would’ve liked a bit more. true to his background as a writer of articles rather than books, many of Craven’s chapters spend reasonably small portions of their word count reintroducing figures we’ve already met while spending unaccountably large portions re-unspooling hefty historical concepts or threads--his somewhat beat-by-beat descriptions of 9/11 and the first Trump campaign in chapters 14 and 18, respectively, are editorially inexcusable. what seems like a bigger editorial flub, however, is the lack of voice: TrueAnon listeners will recall Craven as an infectiously jittery, bombastically funny guy, capable of navigating the sheer grimness of these topics while also illuminating their absurd hilarity, a tone which has been almost completely sucked out of God Forgives, Brothers Don’t. if you’ve only read Craven’s written description of seminude Navy cadets partaking in their annual tradition of gayly climbing a lubed obelisk, couched in a chapter largely about homophobia in the military, listen to his interview with Brace Belden and Yung Chomsky: his verbal account is much more thorough, lucid, and entertaining. this kind of flattening-out of authorial voice is common to nonfiction and it sucks. i was also mildly upset that Craven’s (zoomer, methinks???) editors didn’t catch him erroneously referring to Drowning Pool’s arena metal standard “Bodies” as “Let the Bodies Hit the Floor.”
speaking of the TrueAnon book club, in my review of The Fort Bragg Cartel, i wrote, of Seth Harp’s demonic Special Forces commandos, that:
...these Operators are pathetic, Fort Bragg is a powderkeg, the coverups are laughable, the American military is increasingly failing at its mission, both to grow its own ranks and to win wars. but as much as i don’t want to be around these men, i don’t not want to be these men. i think, in critiquing Operator culture through objectively portraying the darkest elements of the Special Forces, Harp presents us with something that is less alienated and alienating than it is decadent. i don’t not want to sit around all day belting overpriced whiskey and cigars in one of the most top-secret places in America. a world where i could effortlessly threaten enemies and manipulate cops seems pleasant, if not aspirational, and like all postmodern men, i love nothing more than tearfully wallowing in my own perceived badness.
my hope was that God Forgives, Brothers Don’t would address this pessimistic aspiration, and i’m grateful to say that it does, functioning as a sort of intellectual prequel, a sort of bildungsroman narrative, to Harp’s realized, frenetic tale occupying the adult world of sorrow and interpersonal collapse Craven’s schools preclude. often, i felt that Craven’s descriptions of military academy grads stumbling into drug addiction, mental illness, and crime were too brief, but it takes an entirely different book to cover those transformations in-depth. obviously, the Fort Bragg operators aren’t exclusively, or even predominantly, ring-knockers, but Craven expertly details the illegible cycle of torment that makes them the way they are and makes their lifestyle so darkly alluring. whereas Harp’s narrative ended on an indomitably bureaucratic, ruthless, Kafkaesque note, Craven leaves us with a gentle portrait of WWII conscientious objectors building a truly disciplined world of the future, not through destruction, but through collaboration and kindness. i think many of us, including and especially myself, have been annoyed by meme depictions of a supposed non-toxic masculinity to the extent that we reject the concept entirely, but in his conclusion it earns a kind of life that i haven’t found expressed anywhere else. there might be some hope after all.
September 10, 2026
TL;dr - The solution to a single problem should not be applied as the systemic methodology for approaching life; because being a human, especially existing as a man, is not a “mission”.
Or: Everyone loves a shortcut. But there’s always a tradeoff.
Or: So none of this generation’s rhetoric is new.
**********
I sought this out after seeing Craven’s “Subway Takes”, which left me needing to know more about this salacious view and the research behind it.
And I really enjoy the ideas here, I want to hear them talked about more, and from more perspectives. I want to see more discourse on the complete purple intersection of “masculinism” and sexual assault statistics/misogyny/racism/homophobia, discussion of human nature in relation to actual (yes, ever-evolving) science over anecdotal and ignorant observation, addressing the impact the social and economic landscape on educational standards, and acknowledging the juxtaposition of violence with self-expression when we repress it systemically.
But this book is another instance where no minds will be changed (though mine didn’t have to be), and I’m growing more sensitive to texts where you have to already be on the same side of the fence as the author — mostly because their work is done before you even get started. Parts of this feel like those political attack ads, with bias fully built in and carved out. Craven doesn’t put a ton of energy into the pieces of the story which don’t fit this particular narrative but, frankly, that is an extremely tall order and he’s got a point to make, I get it; but this book is more shock-factor than a balanced look back at military education. I am from a military family, and would not be surprised to find completely different opinions from veterans or people who went to military academies.
Overall, an educating read with a long and appreciated bibliography. Just know it will inflame your proud, liberal heart as so much of the language and rhetoric is still relevant today.
Read to the music of Rooftops.
(Side note: I listened to “Why Fish Don’t Exist” earlier this year and was unpleasantly surprised to see David Starr Jordan make an appearance. His bigoted stupidity managed to circle itself back around to logic, apparently.)
Or: Everyone loves a shortcut. But there’s always a tradeoff.
Or: So none of this generation’s rhetoric is new.
**********
I sought this out after seeing Craven’s “Subway Takes”, which left me needing to know more about this salacious view and the research behind it.
And I really enjoy the ideas here, I want to hear them talked about more, and from more perspectives. I want to see more discourse on the complete purple intersection of “masculinism” and sexual assault statistics/misogyny/racism/homophobia, discussion of human nature in relation to actual (yes, ever-evolving) science over anecdotal and ignorant observation, addressing the impact the social and economic landscape on educational standards, and acknowledging the juxtaposition of violence with self-expression when we repress it systemically.
But this book is another instance where no minds will be changed (though mine didn’t have to be), and I’m growing more sensitive to texts where you have to already be on the same side of the fence as the author — mostly because their work is done before you even get started. Parts of this feel like those political attack ads, with bias fully built in and carved out. Craven doesn’t put a ton of energy into the pieces of the story which don’t fit this particular narrative but, frankly, that is an extremely tall order and he’s got a point to make, I get it; but this book is more shock-factor than a balanced look back at military education. I am from a military family, and would not be surprised to find completely different opinions from veterans or people who went to military academies.
Overall, an educating read with a long and appreciated bibliography. Just know it will inflame your proud, liberal heart as so much of the language and rhetoric is still relevant today.
Read to the music of Rooftops.
(Side note: I listened to “Why Fish Don’t Exist” earlier this year and was unpleasantly surprised to see David Starr Jordan make an appearance. His bigoted stupidity managed to circle itself back around to logic, apparently.)
June 10, 2026
Jasper Craven's new book, 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘍𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘉𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘋𝘰𝘯'𝘵, is a "barbed" exploration of military schools and their role in perpetuating a culture of hyper-masculinity. How toxic that can become is subject to interpretation.
The book's title derives from the motto adopted by West Point's football team in 1996. What may have been missed by the players at the time was not lost on the author. The phrase was first coined by the Aryan Brotherhood: "It was their omertà code," a strict code of honor and silence where secrecy is enforced through intimidation and retaliation.
With that inauspicious factoid behind you, the book continues down a disturbing path of initial military education gone wrong. Breaking down individualism to forge an identity built around a sense of team is a necessary part of that experience; how we achieve that has changed significantly over time. Institutionally, we've come a long way from the days of being drawn and quartered. Individually, we sometimes still cope with people who bring sociopathic tendencies to that experience.
But Craven's book — which can take the reader down a pretty dark rabbit hole — raises a key point that is worth exploring. Can we instill the tenacity, grit, and strength of character necessary to rise to the challenge of military service without allowing our methods to turn toxic?
That question sent me back to Camp Toccoa. Rereading the parts of 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 that described the paratrooper experience there was revealing. While most people who either read the book or watched the HBO series agree that Herbert Sobel was a sociopathic *sshole, the men understood later that his methods — however flawed they were — forged them into a team that cemented their place in history.
In my opinion, that's the greatest value of the book and made reading it worthwhile. It forced me to stop and consider the methods we use to get to the type of leader or soldier we need. The answer is a crucible experience... what goes into that remains the question.
The book's title derives from the motto adopted by West Point's football team in 1996. What may have been missed by the players at the time was not lost on the author. The phrase was first coined by the Aryan Brotherhood: "It was their omertà code," a strict code of honor and silence where secrecy is enforced through intimidation and retaliation.
With that inauspicious factoid behind you, the book continues down a disturbing path of initial military education gone wrong. Breaking down individualism to forge an identity built around a sense of team is a necessary part of that experience; how we achieve that has changed significantly over time. Institutionally, we've come a long way from the days of being drawn and quartered. Individually, we sometimes still cope with people who bring sociopathic tendencies to that experience.
But Craven's book — which can take the reader down a pretty dark rabbit hole — raises a key point that is worth exploring. Can we instill the tenacity, grit, and strength of character necessary to rise to the challenge of military service without allowing our methods to turn toxic?
That question sent me back to Camp Toccoa. Rereading the parts of 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 that described the paratrooper experience there was revealing. While most people who either read the book or watched the HBO series agree that Herbert Sobel was a sociopathic *sshole, the men understood later that his methods — however flawed they were — forged them into a team that cemented their place in history.
In my opinion, that's the greatest value of the book and made reading it worthwhile. It forced me to stop and consider the methods we use to get to the type of leader or soldier we need. The answer is a crucible experience... what goes into that remains the question.
August 15, 2026
never would have guessed i’d willingly pick up a book about the U.S. military (after having to unwillingly pick up many throughout undergrad) but holy shit! such important writing, academic but also written in a narrative way that was often touching and deeply impactful. i learned so much from reading this.
June 6, 2026
Slow start but picks up terrifying steam towards the end as he manages to tie it all together, if not perfectly, at least in a way that will stick with you long after finished.
June 6, 2026
informative and depressing
America is locked in a death spiral. I appreciate that the only solution proffered is to object. No forced hope, but something that’s always been there.
America is locked in a death spiral. I appreciate that the only solution proffered is to object. No forced hope, but something that’s always been there.
July 11, 2026
Interesting look how the military establishment and schools has influenced American male ideas of masculinity. Highly recommend.
October 13, 2026
US military history was not an area of interest that was high on my to-read list but I was drawn by Jasper Craven’s pitch for his book on Subway Takes and I was hooked. The book focuses on the development of violence and toxic masculinity at US military schools and how this toxicity seeps into US defence strategies. This was honestly a pretty grim read. The book shows how the military’s stifling “honour code” and rigid hierarchy reinforce the same mistakes over and over again, and we are seeing this vicious cycle playing out in real time. It is also frustrating to see how the small progress in military’s equality that was made in decades got erased quickly in only 2-3 years. There is no easy solution to such a complicated problem but this book offers an interesting and nuanced perspective.
October 21, 2026
detailed investigation of the rot at the core of many of these institutions
August 7, 2026
I have fallen back upon the use of AI to review this book and have included a good deal of additional information. As a recent book, it is quite up-to-date with both historical and recent personalities.
God Forgives, Brothers Don't: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood by Jasper Craven
Summary
God Forgives, Brothers Don't is a nonfiction work that examines the history of military education in the United States and its influence on American ideas of masculinity. Investigative journalist Jasper Craven argues that military institutions, from West Point and military academies to ROTC programs, have played a major role in shaping cultural expectations of what it means to be a man in America.
The book traces this influence from the American Revolution through the Civil War, the World Wars, the Cold War, Vietnam, and the modern era. Craven explores how military culture promoted traits such as discipline, hierarchy, aggression, and toughness, while also examining darker aspects including hazing, prejudice, trauma, and toxic masculinity.
Drawing on historical research and investigative reporting, including his work on Valley Forge Military Academy, Craven contends that military education remains a significant and often overlooked force in American culture and politics.
Book Review
Strengths
Ambitious scope: The book covers more than two centuries of American history, connecting military education to broader social and political developments.
Thorough research: Craven combines archival history, investigative journalism, and contemporary examples to support his arguments.
Timely subject matter: Questions about masculinity, military influence, and national identity are highly relevant in current public discussions.
Potential Criticisms
Readers who strongly support military institutions may feel that Craven focuses heavily on their negative consequences.
The book is analytical and historical rather than celebratory, so those looking for traditional military history may find its emphasis on culture and gender studies less appealing.
Overall Assessment
This is a thought-provoking and well-researched book that challenges readers to reconsider the role military institutions have played in shaping American society. Even readers who disagree with Craven's conclusions are likely to find the historical material informative and engaging.
Rating: ★★★★☆ (4/5) based on its depth of research, relevance, and originality.
About the Author: Jasper Craven
Jasper Craven is an American investigative journalist and freelance reporter who covers military affairs, veterans' issues, and American politics. His work has appeared in publications including The New York Times, Harper's Magazine, Politico Magazine, and Mother Jones.
Craven first gained significant attention for investigative reporting on conditions at Valley Forge Military Academy, research that helped inspire and inform God Forgives, Brothers Don't.
His writing often focuses on the intersection of military institutions, public policy, culture, and power in American life.
Main Themes and Arguments in God Forgives, Brothers Don't
Jasper Craven's central argument is that military education has been one of the most influential forces in shaping American ideas about manhood. He contends that military institutions have not simply trained soldiers; they have helped define cultural expectations of masculinity for generations.
1. The Military as a "Factory of Manhood"
One of the book's core themes is the longstanding promise that military training can transform boys into men. Craven examines how military academies, service schools, and ROTC programs promoted ideals such as:
Discipline
Toughness
Obedience
Physical courage
Hierarchy and authority
According to Craven, these institutions became deeply connected to American cultural definitions of masculinity.
2. The Dark Side of Militarized Masculinity
Craven argues that while military education can foster positive qualities such as leadership and self-discipline, it has also encouraged harmful behaviors and attitudes. He highlights:
Hazing traditions
Violence as a test of manhood
Emotional suppression
Hyper-competitiveness
Rigid gender expectations
The author suggests that some forms of military culture have reinforced what many scholars describe as "toxic masculinity."
3. Military Education's Hidden Influence
A significant argument in the book is that military education is far more widespread than most Americans realize. Craven points not only to military academies such as West Point and Valley Forge but also to thousands of ROTC programs in schools and colleges. He argues that these programs have allowed military values to exert substantial influence on civilian education and culture.
4. Historical Evolution of Masculine Ideals
Craven traces changing ideals of manhood across American history:
The Revolutionary era and the image of George Washington
The Civil War period and military honor culture
The World Wars and the citizen-soldier ideal
The Cold War and rising anxieties about masculinity
Vietnam and the emergence of more cynical military archetypes
The post-9/11 era and the prominence of warriors and special operations culture
His argument is that each era reshaped masculinity while military institutions remained a primary influence.
5. Politics, Religion, and Masculinity
The book also explores the relationship between military schools and conservative political and religious movements. Craven argues that some groups have viewed military education as a means of preserving a patriarchal model of manhood during periods of social change.
Questions the Book Raises
Rather than simply criticizing military institutions, the book invites readers to consider several broader questions:
What does society mean when it says a boy should "become a man"?
How much should military values shape civilian culture?
Can traits like discipline and courage be taught without aggression and hierarchy?
What alternatives exist for developing healthy forms of masculinity?
These questions are at the heart of Craven's investigation.
My Assessment of the Book's Significance
The book is best understood as a work of cultural history and investigative journalism rather than military history alone. Its greatest strength is how it connects historical events, educational institutions, and contemporary debates about gender. Readers interested in American history, education, sociology, gender studies, military affairs, or politics will likely find it particularly valuable.
Even those who disagree with Craven's conclusions may appreciate the breadth of his research and the important discussion he encourages about the relationship between military culture and American identity.
If you've read the book or plan to, one of the most interesting ways to approach it is to compare Craven's arguments with works like Sebastian Junger's Tribe, Chris Hedges's War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, or Robert Bly's Iron John, which offer very different perspectives on masculinity, community, and modern manhood.
God Forgives, Brothers Don't: The Long March of Military Education and the Making of American Manhood by Jasper Craven
Summary
God Forgives, Brothers Don't is a nonfiction work that examines the history of military education in the United States and its influence on American ideas of masculinity. Investigative journalist Jasper Craven argues that military institutions, from West Point and military academies to ROTC programs, have played a major role in shaping cultural expectations of what it means to be a man in America.
The book traces this influence from the American Revolution through the Civil War, the World Wars, the Cold War, Vietnam, and the modern era. Craven explores how military culture promoted traits such as discipline, hierarchy, aggression, and toughness, while also examining darker aspects including hazing, prejudice, trauma, and toxic masculinity.
Drawing on historical research and investigative reporting, including his work on Valley Forge Military Academy, Craven contends that military education remains a significant and often overlooked force in American culture and politics.
Book Review
Strengths
Ambitious scope: The book covers more than two centuries of American history, connecting military education to broader social and political developments.
Thorough research: Craven combines archival history, investigative journalism, and contemporary examples to support his arguments.
Timely subject matter: Questions about masculinity, military influence, and national identity are highly relevant in current public discussions.
Potential Criticisms
Readers who strongly support military institutions may feel that Craven focuses heavily on their negative consequences.
The book is analytical and historical rather than celebratory, so those looking for traditional military history may find its emphasis on culture and gender studies less appealing.
Overall Assessment
This is a thought-provoking and well-researched book that challenges readers to reconsider the role military institutions have played in shaping American society. Even readers who disagree with Craven's conclusions are likely to find the historical material informative and engaging.
Rating: ★★★★☆ (4/5) based on its depth of research, relevance, and originality.
About the Author: Jasper Craven
Jasper Craven is an American investigative journalist and freelance reporter who covers military affairs, veterans' issues, and American politics. His work has appeared in publications including The New York Times, Harper's Magazine, Politico Magazine, and Mother Jones.
Craven first gained significant attention for investigative reporting on conditions at Valley Forge Military Academy, research that helped inspire and inform God Forgives, Brothers Don't.
His writing often focuses on the intersection of military institutions, public policy, culture, and power in American life.
Main Themes and Arguments in God Forgives, Brothers Don't
Jasper Craven's central argument is that military education has been one of the most influential forces in shaping American ideas about manhood. He contends that military institutions have not simply trained soldiers; they have helped define cultural expectations of masculinity for generations.
1. The Military as a "Factory of Manhood"
One of the book's core themes is the longstanding promise that military training can transform boys into men. Craven examines how military academies, service schools, and ROTC programs promoted ideals such as:
Discipline
Toughness
Obedience
Physical courage
Hierarchy and authority
According to Craven, these institutions became deeply connected to American cultural definitions of masculinity.
2. The Dark Side of Militarized Masculinity
Craven argues that while military education can foster positive qualities such as leadership and self-discipline, it has also encouraged harmful behaviors and attitudes. He highlights:
Hazing traditions
Violence as a test of manhood
Emotional suppression
Hyper-competitiveness
Rigid gender expectations
The author suggests that some forms of military culture have reinforced what many scholars describe as "toxic masculinity."
3. Military Education's Hidden Influence
A significant argument in the book is that military education is far more widespread than most Americans realize. Craven points not only to military academies such as West Point and Valley Forge but also to thousands of ROTC programs in schools and colleges. He argues that these programs have allowed military values to exert substantial influence on civilian education and culture.
4. Historical Evolution of Masculine Ideals
Craven traces changing ideals of manhood across American history:
The Revolutionary era and the image of George Washington
The Civil War period and military honor culture
The World Wars and the citizen-soldier ideal
The Cold War and rising anxieties about masculinity
Vietnam and the emergence of more cynical military archetypes
The post-9/11 era and the prominence of warriors and special operations culture
His argument is that each era reshaped masculinity while military institutions remained a primary influence.
5. Politics, Religion, and Masculinity
The book also explores the relationship between military schools and conservative political and religious movements. Craven argues that some groups have viewed military education as a means of preserving a patriarchal model of manhood during periods of social change.
Questions the Book Raises
Rather than simply criticizing military institutions, the book invites readers to consider several broader questions:
What does society mean when it says a boy should "become a man"?
How much should military values shape civilian culture?
Can traits like discipline and courage be taught without aggression and hierarchy?
What alternatives exist for developing healthy forms of masculinity?
These questions are at the heart of Craven's investigation.
My Assessment of the Book's Significance
The book is best understood as a work of cultural history and investigative journalism rather than military history alone. Its greatest strength is how it connects historical events, educational institutions, and contemporary debates about gender. Readers interested in American history, education, sociology, gender studies, military affairs, or politics will likely find it particularly valuable.
Even those who disagree with Craven's conclusions may appreciate the breadth of his research and the important discussion he encourages about the relationship between military culture and American identity.
If you've read the book or plan to, one of the most interesting ways to approach it is to compare Craven's arguments with works like Sebastian Junger's Tribe, Chris Hedges's War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, or Robert Bly's Iron John, which offer very different perspectives on masculinity, community, and modern manhood.
June 8, 2026
This is one of my favorite books I read of the year so far!
September 29, 2026
Multiple people sent me a video where the author of this book talks about how homoerotic the military is, particularly the Navy. I’m a gay man who tried my hardest to join the Navy, then the Army and the Marines, so of course I had to check this out. I liked it well enough, but it didn’t blow me away like I was hoping.
First off, great cover; I loved looking at it.
The chapter on queer people in the military was the one I was most interested in, and that one didn’t disappoint, though I will say the focus was mostly on the history of DADT and less about recent issues queer troops face. I would have loved to see more about internalized homophobia, for example.
The author sometimes would mention “hardcore cadets” when he obviously should have said “high-speed cadets.”
There were two glaring factual errors that I fear are going to completely stem the author’s credibility: he called ROTC Reserve Officers’ Training Course when the C stands for Corps. To get the very basics of officer training incorrect when you’re writing a book about hegemonic masculinity among military officers is egregious.
Second error: he kept referring to Afghanistan as the Middle East, which is already wrong, but even worse, multiple times he called it part of the Arab world. That’s a serious mistake that I hope is corrected in later editions.
He talked about how the Parkland shooter was in JROTC and how a military background is the number one contributor to extremism violence. That fact itself was interesting and I 100% believe, esp. when the author laid out the stats of vets vs. non-vets who participated January 6, but I think it’s a strange move to blame JROTC when most school shooters these days are isolated losers who spend too much time in extremist forums online. I did ROTC for two years of college, and to call it an actual military environment is a stretch.
There was a lot about the childhood-to-military pipeline in terms of Boy Scouts, JROTC programs, and military high schools, which it legitimate, but I wanted to see more about what intrinsic reasons some boys have for enlisting. The author briefly addressed this point in a few individual cases, but the only reason he ever went into was people proving their capability or using the service to escape from a bad home life. What about kids attracted to the idea of not having to pay their own bills, or who are enamored with the idea of tradition (the Navy in particular uses that as a selling point), or even guys who want to just wear the same outfit every day?
There was a focus on conscientious objectors being true paragons of strength and alternative masculinity, and I’ll agree it takes serious balls to push back on an institution like the DOD, but I’m not sure how relevant it was to the thesis as a whole.
I liked the chapter about the Evangelical takeover of the Air Force Academy; I’d heard of that for years and it made me glad that that branch of the service never appealed to me.
The end of the book was very successful, where it connected the fascism of the current administration with hegemonic masculinity common in the military, esp. with Hegseth in charge. Toxic masculinity is intrinsic to fascism, and that’s evident in the DOD with Hegseth’s testosterone screenings, kicking out trans people, disparaging women in combat, the outsized veteran presence at Jan. 6, and focus on “warfighters” rather than any soft power applications of the military. West Point didn’t even put up a fight for its academic integrity, which was a shame to read about.
One reviewer said the author was clearly pushing an agenda, which I don’t think is an incorrect reading of the book. I’ll say I’m glad I read it, but I was hoping for more.
First off, great cover; I loved looking at it.
The chapter on queer people in the military was the one I was most interested in, and that one didn’t disappoint, though I will say the focus was mostly on the history of DADT and less about recent issues queer troops face. I would have loved to see more about internalized homophobia, for example.
The author sometimes would mention “hardcore cadets” when he obviously should have said “high-speed cadets.”
There were two glaring factual errors that I fear are going to completely stem the author’s credibility: he called ROTC Reserve Officers’ Training Course when the C stands for Corps. To get the very basics of officer training incorrect when you’re writing a book about hegemonic masculinity among military officers is egregious.
Second error: he kept referring to Afghanistan as the Middle East, which is already wrong, but even worse, multiple times he called it part of the Arab world. That’s a serious mistake that I hope is corrected in later editions.
He talked about how the Parkland shooter was in JROTC and how a military background is the number one contributor to extremism violence. That fact itself was interesting and I 100% believe, esp. when the author laid out the stats of vets vs. non-vets who participated January 6, but I think it’s a strange move to blame JROTC when most school shooters these days are isolated losers who spend too much time in extremist forums online. I did ROTC for two years of college, and to call it an actual military environment is a stretch.
There was a lot about the childhood-to-military pipeline in terms of Boy Scouts, JROTC programs, and military high schools, which it legitimate, but I wanted to see more about what intrinsic reasons some boys have for enlisting. The author briefly addressed this point in a few individual cases, but the only reason he ever went into was people proving their capability or using the service to escape from a bad home life. What about kids attracted to the idea of not having to pay their own bills, or who are enamored with the idea of tradition (the Navy in particular uses that as a selling point), or even guys who want to just wear the same outfit every day?
There was a focus on conscientious objectors being true paragons of strength and alternative masculinity, and I’ll agree it takes serious balls to push back on an institution like the DOD, but I’m not sure how relevant it was to the thesis as a whole.
I liked the chapter about the Evangelical takeover of the Air Force Academy; I’d heard of that for years and it made me glad that that branch of the service never appealed to me.
The end of the book was very successful, where it connected the fascism of the current administration with hegemonic masculinity common in the military, esp. with Hegseth in charge. Toxic masculinity is intrinsic to fascism, and that’s evident in the DOD with Hegseth’s testosterone screenings, kicking out trans people, disparaging women in combat, the outsized veteran presence at Jan. 6, and focus on “warfighters” rather than any soft power applications of the military. West Point didn’t even put up a fight for its academic integrity, which was a shame to read about.
One reviewer said the author was clearly pushing an agenda, which I don’t think is an incorrect reading of the book. I’ll say I’m glad I read it, but I was hoping for more.
October 20, 2026
Quite an incredible look at how American military academies chew up recruits and spit them out in service of a certain definition of manhood.
What stuck out to me was the dedication of so many people involved — from the Pentagon, to the school staff, to many of the cadets themselves — to perpetuating the system DESPITE the early and abiding distrust of such academies by so many throughout the US’s first 100 years. And, once entrenched, those forces doubled down on the perpetuation.
I myself was in a JROTC program in high school. It was supremely important to me when I participated, but thankfully the unit I was in was not plagued by the problems described in the book, perhaps with some light exceptions. Still, I was vaguely aware of how these academies treated their cadets — and the idea of it never really appealed to me. After one “mini boot camp” weekend, I realized that subjecting myself to that for weeks and months on end was not something that I wanted. I still remember being admonished by our JROTC instructor for disparaging that weekend 🤔
What stuck out to me was the dedication of so many people involved — from the Pentagon, to the school staff, to many of the cadets themselves — to perpetuating the system DESPITE the early and abiding distrust of such academies by so many throughout the US’s first 100 years. And, once entrenched, those forces doubled down on the perpetuation.
I myself was in a JROTC program in high school. It was supremely important to me when I participated, but thankfully the unit I was in was not plagued by the problems described in the book, perhaps with some light exceptions. Still, I was vaguely aware of how these academies treated their cadets — and the idea of it never really appealed to me. After one “mini boot camp” weekend, I realized that subjecting myself to that for weeks and months on end was not something that I wanted. I still remember being admonished by our JROTC instructor for disparaging that weekend 🤔
October 17, 2026
A perfect companion to Seth Harp’s “The Fort Bragg Cartel”. Both books are chilling investigations of toxic American militarism. Neither book can prescribe a corrective, though, as one reviewer noted, “God Forgives, Brothers Don’t” ends with a bit of hope.
Most interesting to me:
1. The slide of an independent thinkers that distrusted and disliked a standing military into the “thank you for your service” automatons of today and
2. The absolute lack of any investigation into the fiasco of Vietnam which has set the stage for countless military blunders since that Americans have been taught to consider as victories, if, in fact, we consider them at all.
Most interesting to me:
1. The slide of an independent thinkers that distrusted and disliked a standing military into the “thank you for your service” automatons of today and
2. The absolute lack of any investigation into the fiasco of Vietnam which has set the stage for countless military blunders since that Americans have been taught to consider as victories, if, in fact, we consider them at all.
October 17, 2026
Hey guys the military is gay and bad. I just got lost between all of the institutions and the dates but that’s what I came away with.
September 3, 2026
This book should be required reading. I have always been curious about the state of American military academies, but the reality is so thoughtfully laid out, it led to some uncomfortable realizations. Clearly well-researched, and well-written, I've already recommended this one to my book club before I was even finished with it.
September 29, 2026
For sure information heavy however in a really interesting way. Mens desire to appease other men is going to do as all in.
October 8, 2026
Very informative, really enjoyed Craven’s prose.
September 11, 2026
Subject matter is good. Narrator was good. If you don't know much about military lead education and the unwavering confidence of men who know nothing about what they are involved in then this will certainly give you a foundation. I just wish they covered more granular teaching details and offered some additional solutions though without them I guess it is a more effective caughtionary tale.
June 12, 2026
4.5! packs a ton into one book without losing focus. does a great job illuminating the enmeshment of military education (something civilians know nothing about - or at least this civilian) and global politics. i noted a ton of stuff that was really interesting but especially the ways military education influenced civilian education (STEM focus, NCLB, teacher evaluations…). thorough, valuable, important work.
disclaimer i know the author but while that induced me to read a book i otherwise might not have, this is an honest review!
disclaimer i know the author but while that induced me to read a book i otherwise might not have, this is an honest review!
June 4, 2026
An insightful examination of masculinity in America and how military education influences what we consider manly
Review of advance copy received from Publisher
Disclaimer: I am a West Point graduate, and my alma mater features prominently in these pages in a mostly negative light. I did not enjoy this book, but not because of that. At least, not entirely. If you think this invalidates my review, fair enough. I think it might make it even more important to read, though. Now to our regularly scheduled review.
I think this book's problem is not the topic, but rather the author, Jasper Craven's inability to really hammer any particular point home in God Forgives, Brothers Don't.
The first issue is that Craven does not put a lot of effort into defining the masculinity he is targeting as troublesome. I read an advanced reader copy, and thus cannot quote directly since it may change, but the version I read only uses three words to define masculinity. What follows is a meandering narrative which is mostly history and not nearly enough documentation of current issues caused by the military worldview.
Craven is a journalist by trade, and it shows badly here. He will make a comment, and then proceed to act as if one or two quotes prove his thought process. My graduating class, for instance, was nearly 1,000 people. If he could define and support systemic issues, then this would be a strong narrative. However, Craven will often let his own views do the heavy lifting instead of detailed surveys which can give a much larger view of the problem. He also keeps inserting conscientious objectors into the narrative. It's a strange diversion which doesn't actually follow with the rest of the story.
Additionally, Craven's views are stark. He uses charged language throughout and is consistently showing his bias. For instance, he correctly points out that West Point took a significant amount of flak during the Civil War because so many cadets and graduates joined the Confederacy. By itself, that can seem damning. However, what he conveniently omits is that nearly every institution in the U.S. was cut in half. This includes institutions which should also be more loyal like Congress. West Point is mandated to pull cadets from all the states in the Union and would not be immune to what's going on in the country at the time. By ensuring all views from around the country are represented, the academy would of course be caught in the maelstrom. (It should be said, Robert E. Lee is a traitor and the hero worship is gross.)
It's Craven's book, so it's his right to do state his opinions as strong as he wants to. But this book will not change any minds. I think former military folks will either not bother with this book or feel like it is half-baked as I do. If you hate the military, you may enjoy it. Or maybe not, because Craven never really outlines an extensive plan of how to fix the problems he is talking about. Yes, a hierarchy can be used to exploit people in any environment. However, history is littered with examples of how lack of leadership leads to horrible battlefield losses.
What is most frustrating about the book is that I believe Craven is right overall. I also should make it clear that I did not find any factual errors in his reporting. Personally, I don't think military-type education should be widespread and certainly not for young people who are sent to these types of places by their parents. It should be entirely voluntary and only used to prepare men and women to fight our wars. As I was told very early in my time at West Point, "our job is to avoid war at all costs, but be the best at it."
I am proud of both where I went to school and my military career. However, I would be the first to say that neither was perfect. There are things which can and should be done better (and I include myself in that statement). This book does not get us any closer to those solutions.
(This book was provided as an advanced reader copy by Atria Books.)
I think this book's problem is not the topic, but rather the author, Jasper Craven's inability to really hammer any particular point home in God Forgives, Brothers Don't.
The first issue is that Craven does not put a lot of effort into defining the masculinity he is targeting as troublesome. I read an advanced reader copy, and thus cannot quote directly since it may change, but the version I read only uses three words to define masculinity. What follows is a meandering narrative which is mostly history and not nearly enough documentation of current issues caused by the military worldview.
Craven is a journalist by trade, and it shows badly here. He will make a comment, and then proceed to act as if one or two quotes prove his thought process. My graduating class, for instance, was nearly 1,000 people. If he could define and support systemic issues, then this would be a strong narrative. However, Craven will often let his own views do the heavy lifting instead of detailed surveys which can give a much larger view of the problem. He also keeps inserting conscientious objectors into the narrative. It's a strange diversion which doesn't actually follow with the rest of the story.
Additionally, Craven's views are stark. He uses charged language throughout and is consistently showing his bias. For instance, he correctly points out that West Point took a significant amount of flak during the Civil War because so many cadets and graduates joined the Confederacy. By itself, that can seem damning. However, what he conveniently omits is that nearly every institution in the U.S. was cut in half. This includes institutions which should also be more loyal like Congress. West Point is mandated to pull cadets from all the states in the Union and would not be immune to what's going on in the country at the time. By ensuring all views from around the country are represented, the academy would of course be caught in the maelstrom. (It should be said, Robert E. Lee is a traitor and the hero worship is gross.)
It's Craven's book, so it's his right to do state his opinions as strong as he wants to. But this book will not change any minds. I think former military folks will either not bother with this book or feel like it is half-baked as I do. If you hate the military, you may enjoy it. Or maybe not, because Craven never really outlines an extensive plan of how to fix the problems he is talking about. Yes, a hierarchy can be used to exploit people in any environment. However, history is littered with examples of how lack of leadership leads to horrible battlefield losses.
What is most frustrating about the book is that I believe Craven is right overall. I also should make it clear that I did not find any factual errors in his reporting. Personally, I don't think military-type education should be widespread and certainly not for young people who are sent to these types of places by their parents. It should be entirely voluntary and only used to prepare men and women to fight our wars. As I was told very early in my time at West Point, "our job is to avoid war at all costs, but be the best at it."
I am proud of both where I went to school and my military career. However, I would be the first to say that neither was perfect. There are things which can and should be done better (and I include myself in that statement). This book does not get us any closer to those solutions.
(This book was provided as an advanced reader copy by Atria Books.)
August 13, 2026
2.5 stars, rounded up. This book is essentially the consistent grinding of an ax, an un-abating polemic spiked with horrifying (and unsurprising) stories of mistreatment and self-harm from across the gamut of military schools and the military itself.
While I believe the stories of those victims and the rampant failure of justice is important, the author so clearly is out to make a point and vilify specific individuals that it quickly loses credibility.
I fundamentally agree with much of what the author says, but their intellectual rigor is abysmal. Numerous pot shots are taken unrelated to the narrative at the time (other than the meta-narrative of toxic masculinity in the military education system and military itself).
Why are these inserted? Seemingly because the author can’t help themselves, which is annoying, as the jabs completely undercut their credibility and ruin the utility of this book for anything other than partisan bickering or, for those willing to pick out the pieces, potential discussion or reflection by those who wade through the insipid morass.
Do I recommend the book? Hm. Perhaps to someone honestly looking to understand what else the military holds beyond their experience and who is capable of holding competing truths simultaneously.
I do not know how many of those readers it will attract, but that is how I hope to honor the lives of those lost and damaged by abuse while also remembering the good that can still come of a very flawed system when shaped by members who care more than the author seems to think most do.
While I believe the stories of those victims and the rampant failure of justice is important, the author so clearly is out to make a point and vilify specific individuals that it quickly loses credibility.
I fundamentally agree with much of what the author says, but their intellectual rigor is abysmal. Numerous pot shots are taken unrelated to the narrative at the time (other than the meta-narrative of toxic masculinity in the military education system and military itself).
Why are these inserted? Seemingly because the author can’t help themselves, which is annoying, as the jabs completely undercut their credibility and ruin the utility of this book for anything other than partisan bickering or, for those willing to pick out the pieces, potential discussion or reflection by those who wade through the insipid morass.
Do I recommend the book? Hm. Perhaps to someone honestly looking to understand what else the military holds beyond their experience and who is capable of holding competing truths simultaneously.
I do not know how many of those readers it will attract, but that is how I hope to honor the lives of those lost and damaged by abuse while also remembering the good that can still come of a very flawed system when shaped by members who care more than the author seems to think most do.
July 31, 2026
I liked this book, but it seemed to kind of isolate the US military education system as a means of teaching hegemonic masculinity that isn’t present in other areas. But things like patriarchy and rape are ubiquitous in US culture. I wish the author would have spoken more about how military ideals bleed into civilian society, including on people who have no association with military education. I also didn’t feel like there was nearly enough discussion on racism and how Whiteness plays a role in hegemonic military masculinity.
Read
April 26, 2026Received advance copy; read for work
June 5, 2026
Filled with generalizations, stereotypes and opinions. Few facts to back up authors views.
August 22, 2026
I'm really glad I got to read this. I hope it's widely read
October 29, 2026
I feel duped. This author had the best interview but this book was so dry! Wtf
Review of advance copy received from Author
I wrote this book!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews