American Military History: From Colonials to Counterinsurgents

by Wesley K. Clark (narrator)

A Rhodes Scholar and thinking man’s officer, Gen. Clark came to master all the tactics, strategy, and historical lore of the U.S. military, the world’s greatest fighting force. In American Military History: From Colonials to Counterinsurgents, he explores the full scope of the nation’s armed conflicts, from the French and Indian War in the mid-18th century to the Global War on Terrorism in the 21st, covering more than 200 years of American diplomacy and warfare. These 24 absorbing half-hour lectures chart the remarkable growth of the United States into the most powerful nation on Earth, thanks in large part to its talent for rising to the occasion when called to war.

He retraces the footsteps of some of his most storied predecessors in uniform—men such as Winfield Scott, Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, John J. Pershing, George Marshall, Dwight Eisenhower, Creighton Abrams, Norman Schwartzkopf, and others—through tragedy and triumph; on the road to war, and the winding path to peace.

And Gen. Clark culls important lessons—along with his own wisdom—from history-changing conflicts that nations and their leaders have found so easy to start and so difficult to conclude. In just one of many examples, he reveals the importance of learning from experience through the story of one of the nation’s founding fathers, George Washington, who nearly lost the Revolutionary War before learning how to win it.

Genres: History, Audiobook, Nonfiction, War, World War II, World War I, Military History

12 pages, Audible Audio

Published January 1, 2018

About the author

Wesley Kanne Clark, Sr., KBE is a retired general of the United States Army. Graduating as valedictorian of his class at West Point, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to the University of Oxford where he obtained a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and later graduated from the Command and General Staff College with a master's degree in military science. He spent 34 years in the Army and the Department of Defense, receiving many military decorations, several honorary knighthoods, and a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Clark commanded Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo War during his term as the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO from 1997 to 2000.

Clark joined the 2004 race for the Democratic Party presidential nomination as a candidate on September 17, 2003, but withdrew from the primary race on February 11, 2004, after winning the Oklahoma state primary, endorsing and campaigning for the eventual Democratic nominee, John Kerry. Clark currently leads a political action committee—"WesPAC"—which was formed after the 2004 primaries, and used it to support numerous Democratic Party candidates in the 2006 midterm elections. Clark was considered a potential candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2008, but, on September 15, 2007, endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton. After Clinton dropped out of the Presidential race, Clark endorsed the then-presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama. Clark currently serves as the co-chairman of Growth Energy, an ethanol lobbying group.

Reviews

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Obviously this is a very quick overview of some very complex situations, but Clark does a great job encapsulating them while identifying key players, strategies, tactics, & turning points. Best of all, he has an excellent way of describing the politics behind the military, as well as key elements that turned or drove the tides of war.

He's well equipped for all of this starting out as a Valedictorian graduate of West Point, serving in combat in Vietnam, & finally retiring after being the commanding general of NATO. His political insight is most impressive. Warriors fight the wars, but it's politics that cause, restrict, finance, & supply it. Politics lay out the grand strategy that generals have to implement.

Overall, it was an excellent set of lectures from a different point of view & well balanced. He doesn't think everything we did was right. Highly recommended.

1 • America: Forged in War: A succession of four wars—beginning in 1689 and continuing for another 75 years—forced the new Americans to look west to the frontier. It was from this direction that the French and their Indian allies attacked. They showed the American colonists just how self-reliant they had to be in defending themselves with their militias & this was a big step in weakening the hold of the British. It's also where they learned Indian tactics & George Washington got his start in the military & became the best known American warrior.

2 • George Washington Takes Command: When British policy & taxes became too burdensome, the American Colonies revolted & sought independence. Washington was well placed & became commanding general. Clark does a good thumbnail sketch of the high points. He doesn't mention it, but at no time were the colonists all for independence. One book put the figures at about 1/3 for, 1/3 against, & the final 1/3 just wanted to be left alone. These divisions in the populace & others in the the revolutionary government made his job a political tight rope walk.

3 • Redcoats Fall to the Continental Army: Over the next four years, the British would attempt three strategies: splitting the colonies, drawing the Continental Army into a decisive battle,
and occupying Philadelphia, the last of which would be a crushing blow to American morale.

The lack of good, timely intelligence was one of the biggest issues faced by both sides, often creating horrific seeming mistakes on both sides. This is an ongoing theme throughout the lecture. Timing was often critical & without proper intelligence some generals were too cautious, others made bold moves & were either chewed up or emerged as heroes.

Washington's main strategy didn't have to be to win, but to not lose. His army's existence was already a loss to England. Out manned, gunned, & supplied he had little chance against the British in a head on fight en mass, but he managed several brilliant &/or lucky engagements. They were most important politically & for the troops morale. I was a bit surprised that he didn't mention more about Benedict Arnold, a real joker in the deck.

4 • Andrew Jackson and the War of 1812: The goals of this war were poorly articulated, politically contentious, and beyond the reach of any feasible military strategy. Even so, some people made a great deal of money from the conflict. The War of 1812 is a reminder of the close
relationships between politics, the military, diplomacy, and economics.

The United States was extremely lucky to come out as well as it did from such an ill-conceived conflict. The war was fought on three fronts: a naval war along the eastern seaboard; a combined land-naval war along the Great Lakes; and a southern and southwestern war, which began with fighting against Indians in Georgia and Alabama and ended with the British defeat in the January 1815 Battle of New Orleans.

During this war, there was also the Creek War which began in 1813 when a bunch of Creeks massacred settlers in Kentucky & Alabama. Andrew Jackson fought a couple of campaigns to put an end to that, although it took until 1814. This set Jackson up to be able to sweep into Florida & take Spanish holdings including Mobile, Alabama which the British were planning on taking to hit the US from the south. They turned to New Orleans instead.

Jackson was ordered to New Orleans, but had his own intelligence, so he took the Spanish fort at Pensacola, Florida first, then went to New Orleans where he won in large part because the British screwed up badly. He emerged as a determined hero while others, including president Madison, didn't fare well politically. This set Jackson up well to become president.

5 • The Mexican-American War of 1846–1848: Manifest Destiny was now a widely held belief of the US. Railroads & a burgeoning population kept pushing west. Texas had declared independence from Mexico in 1836 leaving the New Mexico & California territories still in Mexican hands, but James Polk was an expansionist, although he did compromise on the 49th parallel with Britain in the north, although others in his party wanted everything north through Alaska. He offered to buy New Mexico & California, but positioned General Zach Taylor in Corpus Christi, Texas just in case American negotiator John Slidell's offer failed. Taylor was ordered forward, the Mexicans ambushed a scouting party of his & the war started.

There was some interesting politics between Polk, Taylor (later 12th US president), & Major General Winfield Scott (best known for carrying out Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears). At one point Taylor won a battle, but let the Mexican army go away after they surrendered which pissed Polk off since the main strategy was to compel the government to surrender which they wouldn't do if they had an army. Taylor should have known & acted on the overall strategy of Polk's, but his force was outnumbered, battered, & at the end of long supply line. Polk repudiated the truce Taylor had worked out & sent Scott to Mexico City.

6 • Opening Volleys of the Civil War: 1861–1862 : The issue of American slavery came to a head in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln, a northerner on the ticket of the Republican
Party. Seven states seceded between the time of his election and inauguration. Rapidly, the stage was set for war, one which would be like no other for four reasons: new technology (like telegraphs, railroads, and advanced rifles); the scale (hundreds of thousands of armed men across thousands of
miles); the high quality of leadership; and the fact that the war was fought between two sides of one country...

Fort Sumter was under siege by March 1861 & how Lincoln handled that was masterful. He worked the other side into firing the first shots of the war even slicker than Polk did. This kept a lot of iffy states like Kentucky & Maryland from seceding & gave him the political capital to pull off things like arresting & holding suspected collaborators without trials & dipping into the treasury heavily. He was also helped by the aging commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army, General Winfield Scott. Again, the political aspects of war that almost seem trivial, but are at the heart of the conflict.

All the South needed to do was survive, and it would win. (Similar to George Washington.) For the Union to prevail, it had to compel the South to surrender. Scott saw this as a matter of using the North’s superior resources, including twice the South’s population and 10 times its industrial capacity. He’d squeeze from the outside in until the South surrendered. Scott called it the anaconda strategy. The Union implemented a blockade along the Southern coast and applied pressure through the first military actions in Kentucky and western Virginia.

7 • The Civil War’s Main Front: 1862: The two capitals of the Union and the Confederacy—Washington DC and Richmond—lay less than 100 miles apart. A year into the American Civil War, the fighting forces of the Union and Confederacy had become more capable. The proximity of these two political centers created opportunities for decisive military action. But action exposes one’s vulnerability—and action raises fears and caution.

8 • Vicksburg to Gettysburg: 1862–1863: In the final weeks of 1862, three looming battles seemed likely to define the outcome of the American Civil War. One was near the Southern
capital of Richmond, Virginia. A second was for control of Chattanooga, Tennessee—and the rail link that ran between Virginia and Georgia. The third was a struggle in the west to sever the Confederate grip at a fort on the Mississippi River, at Vicksburg, Mississippi.

The seeds of modern warfare were really evident in the use of new tech & industrialization turning the tide even while politics created caution. Fast news outlets could make or break a general's career. Also the sheer numbers of men, supplies, & munitions were incredible.

9 • Chattanooga to Appomattox: 1863–1865: In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln gave Ulysses S. Grant command of all Union forces. Lincoln had, by now, sorted through his top leaders,
and promoted those who could—and would—fight: Grant, William T. Sherman, and a few others. Grant, along with George Meade, the commander of the Army of the Potomac, would go after Robert E. Lee’s Confederate army and attempt to seize the southern capital at Richmond. In turn, Grant put Sherman in charge of everything west of the Appalachian Mountains. Sherman’s mission was to tackle Confederate general Joe Johnston, who had taken command of Confederate forces in the west.

The economic, manpower, & industrial might of the North was really telling. Sherman lost 3000 more men than Johnston, but he could afford it & wound up in a better position. Sherman got to keep on ravaging despite pissing Lincoln off by the destruction of Atlanta while Johnston got replaced by Jefferson Davis. Similar fights in the west were also good enough news & Lincoln won reelection in 1864.

10 • The Spanish-American War of 1898: In 1896, William McKinley, a Civil War veteran, was elected president. In his inaugural address, he declared: “We want no wars of conquest; we must avoid the temptation of territorial aggression.” But a year earlier, Spain had provoked a revolt in Cuba; the Spanish colonial ruler had responded brutally. Another factor: After the Civil War, American investments in Cuba grew steadily. But the rising tide of anti-colonialism throughout the Americas was challenging Spain’s grip.

The Maine blowing up was an excuse. The reason wasn't known, but Hearst's newspapers said it was the 'work of the enemy' & also published a letter from the Spanish ambassador saying McKinley was weak & playing to the crowd, so that drove public opinion, too.

This war wasn't confined to Cuba, but also the War in the Philippines, but doesn't get as much notice in our history books since Teddy Roosevelt was so prominent in Cuba. The Philippines was actually far bloodier & more costly. It was also a prelude to Vietnam in some ways. It could have been one save they were isolated. Dewey kicked Spain's ass, showing the US was now a naval power equal to the old European powers, & arranged for the Philippine rebel leader Emilio Aguinaldo to return from exile in Hong Kong. Aguinaldo understood that the United States would help him gain the islands’ independence. And naturally, he began setting up a government. Dewey said he made no such promise, though. Worse, the Army was sent in with ambiguous orders & it became a bloody mess since McKinley hadn't decided on the objectives.

This is a point that Clark makes over & over again from this point on. There must be an unwavering objective to fight for. It's not just winning battles, but what to do once the battle is over & that has to take into account the people involved, not just the governments. He brings this failing up again in Vietnam, Afghanistan, & the second Iraq War. The Philippines was an unjust war that wound up killing over 4K US soldiers, but about 600,000 Filipinos over the decade of fighting.

11 • American Expeditionary Forces: 1917–1918: The story of America’s engagement in World War I is about the leaders, the technology, and the competition, cooperation, and conflicts among nations. This was the first war in more than 100 years in which the United States would have allies rather than just adversaries. And it raised America to a status as the world’s preeminent economy and a growing military power. It would also set in motion the global currents leading to other great conflicts throughout the 20th century.
12 • John J . Pershing, the Doughboys, and France: By June 3, 1918, the Germans were some 56 miles from Paris. It was now or never for the American Expeditionary Forces of General John J. Pershing. Despite Germany’s unrestricted submarine warfare, 650,000 American troops had arrived in France. The Americans faced huge challenges, though: a brutal enemy, skeptical allies, untried commanders and troops, and technologies and scale totally new in the American experience.

The US still wasn't considered an equal of the European powers until our entry into WWI turned the tide of the war. The sheer magnitude of everything involved in this war is incredible. Politics, transportation, technology, & especially the numbers of dead.

13 • From Pearl Harbor to the Battle of Midway: The War to End All Wars did nothing but set the stage for Germany to try again allowing for the rise of Hitler. He & Stalin decided to split up Poland, although he invaded Russia just a year or so later. Japan invaded northern China & finally everyone had to start honoring defense treaties, but all were sluggish about it.

14 • War in North Africa and the South Pacific: North Africa was a training & proving ground for the US forces. It prepared & honed them well for the fight into & through Europe at the end of an extended & isolated German supply line. The South Pacific was just brutal.

Again, a lot of political infighting among commanders, politicians, & the people at home drove many of the decisions.

15 • Air Power over Germany; Toward Japan by Sea:
16 • From Normandy to Berlin and Tokyo:

17 • Korea and the Cold War: In 1948, President Harry Truman was re-elected. The next year, the United States formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, with 12 European allies. NATO was built on the pledge that an attack on one member was an attack on all. A few months later, Chinese communists under Chairman Mao Zedong prevailed in that nation’s civil war. The Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb. In early 1950, the United States made the decision to rearm—after a drawdown following World War II—and declared the zones and countries it would protect. The southern reaches of the Korean Peninsula—formerly annexed to Japan—were not designated part of this area of protection, even though the U.S. military had occupied and administered it. But war did not wait on American decision making.

18 • The United States Enters Vietnam:France colonized Vietnam in the mid-1800s. Japan occupied it during World War II. Then, a communist revolutionary and founder of the Indochina Communist Party named Ho Chi Minh created the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in September 1945. The French attempted to regain control of Vietnam after World War II, but China helped the Viet Minh, a communist-led resistance movement that Ho Chi Minh had also founded. And the Chinese eliminated French border posts along its border. While the French initially controlled the south and northern cities, they lost most of the northern countryside. As the struggle intensified, France requested American assistance, including U.S. airpower and ground troops. This led to an agonizing debate.

19 • Elusive Victory in Southeast Asia:Sometimes a single person can make a substantial difference. In the Vietnam War, that person was Creighton Abrams Jr., who commanded U.S. military operations in Vietnam from June 1968 until late 1972. In January 1968, U.S. and South Vietnamese forces withstood a coordinated attack by the north on more than 100 cities and towns. And though American and South Vietnamese forces killed 10 enemy soldiers for every one they lost,
Hanoi gained a huge propaganda victory by surging its forces into Saigon and temporarily taking control of the American embassy courtyard.

Unfortunately, it was too late. There hadn't been proper objectives & too much politics. LBJ & Westmoreland had lied too much & too often. Finally the right thing was being done & it was working, but too few knew it & Ellsburg's revelations quashed any hopes of continuing.

20 • American Forces in Grenada and Panama: Basically the US responded with well planned & supplied overwhelming force with clear objectives.

21 • Knocking Iraq Out of Kuwait: Ditto above, although many thought it stopped too soon.

22 • Balkan Wars: Bosnia and Kosovo: NATO dithered & Clark well knows why since he was in the center of the action as the head of the military forces.

23 • Afghanistan, Iraq, and Terrorism: In Afghanistan, America tried to establish a centralized state in a tribal culture wrecked by decades of war. Most of those years, America did it on the cheap with never enough forces. American money fed local rivalries and corruption. Pakistan’s support of the Taliban made the military effort even more difficult. American military men and women were consigned to low-level conflicts that would persist for a very long time. America faced similar difficulties in Iraq: After the initial combat stage in Iraq, United States political leadership muffed the occupation.

Again, the mistakes we made in the Philippines. No clear idea what to do with our victories when we achieved them. Different ideologies & these places aren't isolated, but have a lot of other nations meddling, lending sanctuary & support. Clark doesn't say so, but fanatics aren't rational or amenable to negotiation.

What has come out of it is some really impressive high tech weaponry with extremely high accuracy. While folks at home scream at every mistake that costs civilian lives, we're able to put down a lot more firepower with less civilian casualties than ever before & in all sorts of conditions.

24 • Facing Wars Past and Future: Contains a great overview of how warfare has evolved for us. He also reiterates the points that generals need to be political animals, but not partisan. They can't be gunning for the top spot for themselves. This segues into the limits of the military. Basically, they're an intelligent tool. He ran a training center & the intelligent tools start at the bottom. The best units are good soldiers that work as a team, complementing each other.

- America should not start another war if it can avoid it. There should be no more situations like Cuba, the Philippines, or Iraq. The United States should take resolve from courage and faith rather than acting from fear.
- If war is forced on America, the country should have a clear and reasoned statement of objectives as well as an understanding of how military action can achieve those objectives. The United States
should have some idea of how to end the conflict once the objectives are attained. It’s easier to start a war than to end one.
- The United States must continue to invest in its armed forces during peacetime. America’s armed forces must be populated, trained, and equipped to the highest standards—not so they can be deployed, but so they won’t have to be.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a straight retelling of American wars without insight or distinction. The few attempts at analysis come across as well every insight you ever hear from a general officer. There are no new ideas here. Not worth the listen unless you know nothing about American history and even then this is High School level material. Not really up t0 the Great Courses usual standards.

[William Bahr · Rating 5 out of 5]

General Clark’s work is an outstanding overview of American wars. Along with an interesting description for each of the major American conflicts, he brings out how rules of strategy and tactics have been applied (or not). At the end of each lecture, the General offers up some important questions to consider.

As the Amazon description of this audio product does not contain much of a description of what is offered in this set of audio CDs, here is what one finds in the 293+ page Course Guidebook/workbook PDF, which the set includes:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
Professor Biography i
Course Scope 1

LECTURE GUIDES
1 • America: Forged in War . 3
2 • George Washington Takes Command . 14
3 • Redcoats Fall to the Continental Army . 25
4 • Andrew Jackson and the War of 1812 . 35
5 • The Mexican-American War of 1846–1848 46
6 • Opening Volleys of the Civil War: 1861–1862 58
7 • The Civil War’s Main Front: 1862 . 70
8 • Vicksburg to Gettysburg: 1862–1863 . 82
9 • Chattanooga to Appomattox: 1863–1865 94
10 • The Spanish-American War of 1898 105
11 • American Expeditionary Forces: 1917–1918 118
12 • John J. Pershing, the Doughboys, and France 129
13 • From Pearl Harbor to the Battle of Midway 141
14 • War in North Africa and the South Pacific . 154
15 • Air Power over Germany; Toward Japan by Sea . 166
16 • From Normandy to Berlin and Tokyo 177
17 • Korea and the Cold War 188
18 • The United States Enters Vietnam 200
19 • Elusive Victory in Southeast Asia 212
20 • American Forces in Grenada and Panama 224
21 • Knocking Iraq Out of Kuwait 235
22 • Balkan Wars: Bosnia and Kosovo . 246
23 • Afghanistan, Iraq, and Terrorism 256
24 • Facing Wars Past and Future 269

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Bibliography 278

I haven’t seen the DVD version and thus don’t know if graphics of the various battles were provided. While the audio CD version does have various artwork, I couldn’t see any graphics of battles, which would have proven very helpful as one listens to the description of various military action. If there are any battle graphics available, I’d advise they be provided with the CD version.

Bottom-line, from a fellow author, highly recommended!

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's fine but everything he talks about after Vietnam is tinged with his bias towards military-led interventions, and he seems to view civilian oversight and geopolitical considerations as obstacles to be overcome.

[Rebecca Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed these lectures — they give a succinct overview of every major American military conflict without getting too into the weeds. What made these special was the occasional personal anecdote from General Clark from Vietnam on.

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very informative.
Taught me that things in the past had many similarities to modern times, especially regarding the relationships between politics and the military. The General does an excellent job of helping to put several items into historic perspective, such as the Viet Nam War protests, etc.

[Honza Prchal · Rating 5 out of 5]

If I taught high school history, this would be part of my materials.
In hindsight, it's sad to hear General Clark talk confidently about likely outcomes from Iraq and Afghanistan and the justice of going in (he'd likely have been shocked that Iraq is pretty functional and is massively destabilizing Iran now, without its government trying to, while Afghanistan has collapsed into feudal Islam that has a surprisingly hard time exporting it's nastier ideologies abroad), but that's a mere quibble. His call for an apolitical military became massively unpopular within his party just a few years after he recorded this. His repudiation of the Clinton forward strategy in wars (not stated as such) and the Bush '43 pre-emption doctrine (stated as such, but very similar to late-Clinton ideas), is similarly a quibble, and I cannot fault him for focusing so much on his part in the Balkan wars and not what preceded it. Ditto his omission of the wars against the Barbary pirates and the strategic importance of New Orleans to us in 1812 and the war against Mexico.
I am very impressed by how positively he views his own campaign for his party's nomination for President, and Haig's and Powell's abortive campaigns for same. I suppose that strongly informs his very unfashionable (especially for a Democrat) respect for and sympathy with Douglas MacArthur. I wonder if the family member who survived the Marines' campaign in the Pacific informs his respect for MacArthur's shockingly low casualty rates in comparison with the Marines. I was a bit shocked that he didn't mention that the Commies had all of MacArthur's war plans between 48 and 72 hours after he wrote them, and were still unable to to check his offensive operations until committing over thirty Red Chinese divisions and plenty of first line Soviet air power, but I suspect that the reluctance may have something to do with the Harry Dexter White's and other DC-side saboteurs (but White, at Treasury, was the most effective, arguably the most effective singly spy in history, having redirected Japan's anger at DC instead of Moscow, prompting our entry into the war in earnest, and then sinking the government that had outlasted the Japanese in the East and crushed the Soviets in the West to the point that Stalin almost sold Mao's tattered remnants out) of Chiang's government on the mainland. Certainly he wishes our early Vietnam policy had drawn on old China hands' expertise.
In inclusion and omission, General Clark's history is first rate. It's certainly better than his rather hapless, if generally honourable, run for President. Nota bene that he absolutely refused to buy into the "lied us into war" nonsense that is now bipartisan. The general is not one for conspiracy theories, and his facts are right.

[Antipoet · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mixed bag.

He skips over a lot of important things (e.g. the Indian Wars?!) and includes some very overly specific details (e.g. exact troop numbers for Chancelorsville...which he doesn't name). Personal bias seems to intrude a few times, most notably during the civil war (he dwells a lot on the quality of rebel soldiering while leaving out American feats of similar stature) and the Vietnam War.

What gets selected for analysis doesn't seem to be consistent. The discussion of American military behavior between 1945 and 2001 is singularly uncritical, while the end is a searing condemnation of the incompetence that lost the GWOT.

I'm not sure who I'd recommend this to. Newbies? Probably not; I could follow the overly detailed summaries of civil war battles because I've been to those places. Old hands? I found a lot of it to be old hat. Maybe high school students who need a refresher before the APUSH test.

[Elwin Kline · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would much rather had a deep dive into each war/conflict instead of the touch and go provided within this. Maybe for a junior officer in the military this would be mildly amusing, but then again I am sure through your various courses taken throughout college and just own self research you would already be very familiar with this content.

Much respect to the author! 38 years of service and a 4 Star General. Ranger. Fought in Vietnam.

It just wasn't super gripping and right when Vietnam got good, the subject changed. Same thing for Panama, and pretty much the entire course.

2.5 out of 5 level material, round up for the authors contribution to the nation and his honorable service..

[Arka Sadhu · Rating 4 out of 5]

The parts of the American Revolution, civil war, two world wars, Korean War, Vietnam war make up to 90% of the content. There are only a few chapters on Spanish American war.

I was most familiar with a lot of the content but a few chapters on the Vietnam war stood out where the author shared some of his first-hand experience. A few parts here and there in two world wars were new to me but I feel dedicated books on those topics are way better.

Overall, it is an okay overview of American military history but prefers breadth rather than depth. I wish the author delved deeper into the exact strategies used rather than a re-telling of the events.

[Gilbert Stack · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was one of the most interesting overviews of American military history I have ever read. The difference is, of course, that the historian is not an academic but was one of the highest ranking generals in the modern U.S. military. His perspective is fascinating as he discusses events I knew well but constantly managed to offer an insight that made me stop and think. Often it was an insight into the political or strategic perspective—such as noticing how a lack of clarity regarding objectives could promote failure. It’s a fascinating book.

[Bryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Each chapter offers a really good recap of American history seen through the lens of military conflict over time and, from Vietnam on, the life experiences of General Clark, which were a great addition to this book.

[Justin March · Rating 5 out of 5]

Man, I wish General Clark would run for president again.

[Joshua Duran]

Audible Audiobook

[Ralph Trickey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent summary
This is primarily a summary of American military efforts. It touches on some of the political issues but doesn't go into any great detail. It presents an opinionated view, without all the waffling that often goes with history.

By putting names and specifying actions, I've learned far more from this course than the sanitized views I got from my American History courses.

If you want to learn more about military strategy and about American history, this is a great book that combines the two.