What do you think?
Rate this book
Warrior Dreams: Violence and Manhood in Post-Vietnam America
The historian and sociologist James William Gibson examines one of the legacies of America's defeat in a disturbing and reactionary consumer war culture at home. Notes, index.
357 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
1 person is currently reading
267 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
May 11, 2023
Disturbing. Still relevant.
May 13, 2019
One of the most insightful books I’ve ever read about the rise of paramilitary culture in the post Vietnam years. The lasting impact of this culture can still be felt today - in many ways the Trump presidency represents the fulfillment of this culture rather than a deviation from it. So much of this book reads
Ike it’s ripped from discussions about violence in society today. Absolutely fascinating book. Highly recommend it.
Ike it’s ripped from discussions about violence in society today. Absolutely fascinating book. Highly recommend it.
March 9, 2022
Gibson's work predates some of the worst aspects of Militia culture and its resulting confrontation with the Federal Government. For this reason the work seems unfinished.
Gibson is strongest when describing the cultural forces at play, and their relationship to paramilitary culture. The American cultural relationship with paramilitaries and vigilantes is very well articulated by Gibson.
However Gibsons pearl clutching over the game of paintball seems with hindsight a little delusional.
Gibson is a more nuanced than modern day left leaning writers and much better researched. But he still espouses essentially the same left wing tropes and remedies.
Gibson is strongest when describing the cultural forces at play, and their relationship to paramilitary culture. The American cultural relationship with paramilitaries and vigilantes is very well articulated by Gibson.
However Gibsons pearl clutching over the game of paintball seems with hindsight a little delusional.
Gibson is a more nuanced than modern day left leaning writers and much better researched. But he still espouses essentially the same left wing tropes and remedies.
August 25, 2025
This is a great book. It helps to explain the rise of the crazy militarised militias in the US. And why Americans are so wrapped up in their military fantasies... Everyone should read this.
August 10, 2025
Although it has been a few years since I read Gibson’s “Warrior Dreams”, I found that it offers one possible explanation for the rise of the “weekend warrior” ethos and phenomenon in American culture, a phenomenon that is especially evident in the various rural cultures in the United States and which in its most virulent form finds its expression today in the Militia Movement. This culture stream in the US began, according to Gibson, in the 1970’s as both an outgrowth of and in response to the national shame resulting from the US loss of the Vietnam War—a shame that was perhaps most strongly felt in those pockets of rural America (especially the rural South) where a disproportionate percentage of America’s actual war fighters have traditionally originated.
Gibson argues persuasively that a new mythology grew out of America’s loss in Vietnam, a mythology in which the loss is blamed—not on the failings of the American soldier, who in the mythos is considered so vastly superior to their enemies that blaming such a loss on the fighting men borders on the ridiculous—but instead on the running of the war effort by “politicians” or “political generals” who were never fully committed to the war effort, or at least whose commitment was constrained by public opinion such that the “full weight” of America’s might was never brought to bear on the enemy. This resulted, the according to the myth, in the US trying to fight a war as though its armed forces had “one hand tied behind its back”. And thus, it was only because of this “betrayal” of the front line soldier by the “Washington” generals that, rather than focusing its overwhelming and superior armed forces on squashing the Viet Cong irritants like so many third-world bugs, the mighty US War Machine was instead humbled by a bunch of half-trained rice farmers. (As the myth would state it.)
The weekend warrior ethos emerged from this myth, first as a subset of American gun culture that glorified a private “warrior ethos” in response to the perceived national failure represented by the Vietnam War. Citing the birth of “Soldier of Fortune” magazine and such social phenomenon such as the popularity of the “Rambo” movies, Gibson tracks the rapid growth of “private” military training from a cottage industry to a significant market segment, arguing that this represented a kind of DIY approach to military preparedness which prior to this period been almost entirely subsumed into actual military service in the US Armed Forces.
I find Gibson’s identification of the social and cultural milieu from which this “weekend warrior” ethos grew to be excellent and persuasive. I am also persuaded by his identification of a loss-justifying mythology, similar in many ways to the so-called “Lost Cause” mythology in the American South which was itself an attempt to grapple with the implications of the South’s loss of the Civil War by creating a cultural justification for that loss.
I think that Gibson missed out on a potentially significant source of support for his arguments by failing to include in his analysis the growth of the so-called “Prepper” movement contemporarily with the growth of the weekend warriors. I see a lot of potential cross-pollination occurring between the Preppers and the weekend warriors. After all, Preppers take it as an article of faith that they will one day be called upon to survive without modern conveniences and will be required to defend their families and property with violence in a lawless, post-apocalyptic America.
In general, believe that Gibson’s analysis would have been helped by some mention of the growth of extremist ideologies in the United States, but in his defense, I cannot say with certainty that there had been much writing or analysis done on the extremist phenomenon at the time he wrote this book. D.J. Mulloy’s book on American Extremism comes to mind as a good—but not a timely—example of writing that Gibson could have benefited from.
Gibson argues persuasively that a new mythology grew out of America’s loss in Vietnam, a mythology in which the loss is blamed—not on the failings of the American soldier, who in the mythos is considered so vastly superior to their enemies that blaming such a loss on the fighting men borders on the ridiculous—but instead on the running of the war effort by “politicians” or “political generals” who were never fully committed to the war effort, or at least whose commitment was constrained by public opinion such that the “full weight” of America’s might was never brought to bear on the enemy. This resulted, the according to the myth, in the US trying to fight a war as though its armed forces had “one hand tied behind its back”. And thus, it was only because of this “betrayal” of the front line soldier by the “Washington” generals that, rather than focusing its overwhelming and superior armed forces on squashing the Viet Cong irritants like so many third-world bugs, the mighty US War Machine was instead humbled by a bunch of half-trained rice farmers. (As the myth would state it.)
The weekend warrior ethos emerged from this myth, first as a subset of American gun culture that glorified a private “warrior ethos” in response to the perceived national failure represented by the Vietnam War. Citing the birth of “Soldier of Fortune” magazine and such social phenomenon such as the popularity of the “Rambo” movies, Gibson tracks the rapid growth of “private” military training from a cottage industry to a significant market segment, arguing that this represented a kind of DIY approach to military preparedness which prior to this period been almost entirely subsumed into actual military service in the US Armed Forces.
I find Gibson’s identification of the social and cultural milieu from which this “weekend warrior” ethos grew to be excellent and persuasive. I am also persuaded by his identification of a loss-justifying mythology, similar in many ways to the so-called “Lost Cause” mythology in the American South which was itself an attempt to grapple with the implications of the South’s loss of the Civil War by creating a cultural justification for that loss.
I think that Gibson missed out on a potentially significant source of support for his arguments by failing to include in his analysis the growth of the so-called “Prepper” movement contemporarily with the growth of the weekend warriors. I see a lot of potential cross-pollination occurring between the Preppers and the weekend warriors. After all, Preppers take it as an article of faith that they will one day be called upon to survive without modern conveniences and will be required to defend their families and property with violence in a lawless, post-apocalyptic America.
In general, believe that Gibson’s analysis would have been helped by some mention of the growth of extremist ideologies in the United States, but in his defense, I cannot say with certainty that there had been much writing or analysis done on the extremist phenomenon at the time he wrote this book. D.J. Mulloy’s book on American Extremism comes to mind as a good—but not a timely—example of writing that Gibson could have benefited from.
April 25, 2025
Gibson's overview of the new war myth in post-Vietnam America is very compelling. New war fantasies are definitely culturally prevalent (e.g. origin myths and black widow women). And they have significant real world impacts. The chapters on (1) domestic terror inspired by new war myths and (2) the Reagan administration and Nicaragua are especially interesting. I found Gibson's line that "it is quite possible that at some later date the mythology will be reworked and reinvigorated to mobilize support for some other war effort" (pp. 303) chilling.
I also found Gibson's account of his experience at Gunsite Ranch in AZ extremely interesting. I wonder if I have felt similarly before -- or maybe I've just absorbed this through media which continues to feature new war myths. On the other hand, some of the paintball section seemed like a bit of a stretch to me, though I have never tried paintball myself.
The conclusion interacts very well with Of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves. To move past new war myths, we need more involved fathers, new forms of initiation rituals, and new ways to escape reality (e.g. instead of escaping into a war fantasy, escape into fantasy by scuba diving or mountain biking in the wilderness). Moreover, I like Gibson's optimism about re-molding masculinity such that new war myths are no longer appealing. I actually wish this section was longer, though I understand this is not the point of the book.
I also found Gibson's account of his experience at Gunsite Ranch in AZ extremely interesting. I wonder if I have felt similarly before -- or maybe I've just absorbed this through media which continues to feature new war myths. On the other hand, some of the paintball section seemed like a bit of a stretch to me, though I have never tried paintball myself.
The conclusion interacts very well with Of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves. To move past new war myths, we need more involved fathers, new forms of initiation rituals, and new ways to escape reality (e.g. instead of escaping into a war fantasy, escape into fantasy by scuba diving or mountain biking in the wilderness). Moreover, I like Gibson's optimism about re-molding masculinity such that new war myths are no longer appealing. I actually wish this section was longer, though I understand this is not the point of the book.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 23, 2017
Rather old but also still timely.
September 7, 2019
Excellent, eye-opening, unsettling. Read back to back with Belew’s Bring the War Home (on the growth of white nationalism and the militia movement post-Vietnam) ; together, wove together a bunch of cultural threads and recent history.
August 18, 2025
I should have written this review almost half a year ago. I loved this book. For someone like me who is attracted to the idea of combat and warfare this book does a great job of connecting that need in many American men to history. Read it.
September 9, 2010
I'm not sure that I buy the stock blurb- I thought it was a fairly clever and insightful book, with some great analysis of all the crap 1980's Gold Eagle titles and suchlike that I grew up reading. I'll have to reread it and see if it still hangs together for me 16 years later.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews