Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1968

by Thomas E. Ricks

#1 New York Times bestselling author and Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas E. Ricks offers a new take on the Civil Rights Movement, stressing its unexpected use of military strategy and its lessons for nonviolent resistance around the world.

“Ricks does a tremendous job of putting the reader inside the hearts and souls of the young men and women who risked so much to change America . . . Riveting.” —Charles Kaiser, The Guardian

In Waging a Good War, the bestselling author Thomas E. Ricks offers a fresh perspective on America’s greatest moral revolution—the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s—and its legacy today. While the Movement has become synonymous with Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ethos of nonviolence, Ricks, a Pulitzer Prize–winning war reporter, draws on his deep knowledge of tactics and strategy to advance a surprising but revelatory the greatest victories for Black Americans of the past century were won not by idealism alone, but by paying attention to recruiting, training, discipline, and organization—the hallmarks of any successful military campaign.

An engaging storyteller, Ricks deftly narrates the Movement’s triumphs and defeats. He follows King and other key figures from Montgomery to Memphis, demonstrating that Gandhian nonviolence was a philosophy of active, not passive, resistance—involving the bold and sustained confrontation of the Movement’s adversaries, both on the ground and in the court of public opinion. While bringing legends such as Fannie Lou Hamer and John Lewis into new focus, Ricks also highlights lesser-known figures who played critical roles in fashioning nonviolence into an effective tool—the activists James Lawson, James Bevel, Diane Nash, and Septima Clark foremost among them. He also offers a new understanding of the Movement’s later difficulties as internal disputes and white backlash intensified. Rich with fresh interpretations of familiar events and overlooked aspects of America’s civil rights struggle, Waging a Good War is an indispensable addition to the literature of racial justice and social change—and one that offers vital lessons for our own time.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, American History, Race, Military Fiction, Military History

466 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 4, 2022

About the author

Thomas Edwin "Tom" Ricks (born September 25, 1955) is an American journalist who writes on defense topics. He is a Pulitzer Prize-winning former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post. He writes a blog at ForeignPolicy.com and is a member of the Center for a New American Security, a defense policy think tank.

He lectures widely to the military and is a member of Harvard University's Senior Advisory Council on the Project on U.S. Civil-Military Relations. He has reported on military activities in Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Ricks is author of five books: the bestselling Fiasco: The American Military Adventure In Iraq (2006), its follow-up The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006-2008 (2009), The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today (2012), the novel A Soldier's Duty (2001), and Making the Corps (1997) (from wikipedia)

Reviews

[Darya Silman]

Publication date: October 4, 2022.

Informative and helpful guide into nonviolence, a Gandhian tactic more aggressive in achieving its goals than open hostilities.

Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1968 describes the mechanics of nonviolence that led to the actual desegregation of the South.

Thomas E. Ricks, a war reporter and military history specialist, provides a new glance into the movement of the 1950s-1960s in America that gave rise to such figures as Martin Luther King Jr., Diane Nash, James Lawson, and James Bevel, among the countless others. From the Montgomery bus boycott to the King's assassination, the book guides the readers through the essential battles, focusing on the appliance of Gandhian philosophy to American reality. To achieve their goals, leaders spent months in preparation, much longer than the actual event itself. The thorough research of the surroundings, recruiting and training of volunteers, unexpected twists in tactics if the old one wasn't working, and the little victories instead of unrealistic global changes resembled how an army operates before and in battle. Whenever these essentials were missing (like in Chicago), the movement achieved little in the best case; in the worst, it complicated the situation on the ground.

Distilling the tremendous amount of information to serve one purpose - to show the principles of nonviolence - the author managed to illuminate well-known facts in a new light. When starting the book, I considered recommending it only to people with no previous knowledge of the subject. After all, everybody at least heard, if not researched, about Martin Luther King Jr. However, as the author dived deeper into the philosophical aspects of Gandhian teaching, without employing an academic style, I found myself anticipating the next page and the next, and the next. For people who need practical lessons in nonviolence, the book can be a step-by-step guide as well as a source of further reading.

Violence produces more violence. Why not learn from history how effective nonviolence can be?

I obtained the advance review copy through NetGalley, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.

[Larry Bassett]

Let me begin by talking about one of the issues that might put you off about this book. It certainly put me off as a impassioned anti-military activist. The author likes to equate the work and operation and success of the movement to a military machine or operation. This issue is noted significantly even in the New York Times review of this book. The author makes comparisons frequently to military experiences. I was prepared to see this as a major defect in the book but now that I have listened to the entire book, while following along with the e-book, I have to say that I was not as put off as I expected to be. The fact that people in the movement and the experiences that are described in the 1960s and 1970s Were extremely stressful and dangerous is obvious, and the fact that people who went through this experience did not infrequently suffer from PTSD after the fact. Sometimes the comparisons to military experiences and war and battles seemed a little overdone, but I never found it so offputting that I stopped reading.

I was a high school student and a college student in the 1960s and I remember experiencing many of the described events in the south via the news, media and television. To have the look behind-the-scenes that this book presents was interesting and evidently well researched. There are no great revelations here of new information. It was interesting to see that the author used FBI wiretaps as one source of confirming events with private conversations that were happening in the midst of public activities.

The coverage of freedom, Summer in 1964 when Northern college students, mostly White went to Mississippi to work on voter registration issues was fascinating. The decision to use young black students in the Birmingham protests that led to the massive publicity about fire hoses and dogs was reminiscent from the past, but also instructive. The MO of the movement through that period of time is discussed in some detail and repeatedly. As a community organizer myself that was, of course fascinating.

The book was well written, and well organized, going in a linear fashion through the years and the events. The comparison of some events to certain battles and past military tactics sometimes seemed overdone. I think the fact that people were involved in a sometimes brutal struggle was convincing that they could have suffered from some of the same outcomes as military soldiers.

One of the things that was new information to me to my recollection was the statement that during the period of time when they were searching for the three missing freedom, summer activist were killed, they uncovered what is claimed to be many black bodies that had been killed previously . The fact that the killing of a couple of white northern activist got much more media attention than the frequent killing of native blacks in Mississippi routinely.

[Steve]

Militant Nonviolence is not an Oxymoron

“The arc of the moral universe is long,” Martin Luther King, Jr. observed, “but it bends toward justice.” True enough, I suppose, but here’s the deal. It doesn’t just happen. As Thomas Ricks demonstrates in his new book Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954 – 1968, the arc of the moral universe only bends toward justice when people of goodwill and courage fully commit to bending it.

At first, I was confused by the framing of the book as a military history. Ricks characterizes the Civil Rights Movement as “intensely American, strongly nonviolent, and rooted in Christian faith, especially a vigorous belief in love and forgiveness.” Hmm. A military history struck me as ironic. After all, nonviolence is neither a philosophy nor an approach one typically associates with the military.  Now, having read the book, I can tell you Ricks’ framing is brilliant -- for at least three important reasons.

First, King and the Movement leaders, and their legions of participants were engaged in what Ricks describes as “a small-scale, regional civil war.”  

Second, the Movement operated like a military unit in terms of how it formulated and deployed direct action campaigns against an entrenched opposition. It successfully leveraged an integrated set of traditional military disciplines including:

• Establishing clarity on the strategic objectives to be achieved,
• Planning to identify and to select opportunities for action with the greatest potential to achieve its objectives,
• Training to educate participants on the broader goals and what was being asked of them individually,
• Maintaining organizational discipline to ensure coordinated, consistent, and sustained action,
• Proactively establishing support structures (communications, transportation and logistics, food, legal assistance, etc.), and
• Reconciling with the opposition post engagement to transform, not to destroy them. This last step is often overlooked in discussions of nonviolent action.

In other words, the actions of the Movement were rigorously formulated, focused, and deliberate. They did not emerge organically or “on the fly” although they did adapt as needed.  The lessons from the Movement are instructive as a broader example of what is required and how, specifically, social change can be achieved.

Last, and perhaps most importantly, Ricks clarifies the concept of nonviolence. He begins by addressing what nonviolence is not. It is not merely “passive resistance” or a “willingness to take a beating.” Rather, nonviolence is the use of peaceful means to attain peaceful ends. In this context, nonviolence can be thought of both as a militant action and as an offensive weapon. Deployed effectively, nonviolence is a catalyst to highlight structural injustices (e.g., racial, social, economic) to galvanize change. It is not a coincidence that the biggest triumphs of the Civil Rights Movement paralleled the emergence of the national television networks. Ultimately, the aim of nonviolence is to transform, not to abolish the system. That’s why the reconciliation of opposing forces in the final step is critically important.

The Movement may not have achieved all its objectives, but its successes are impressive and include:

• Eliminating Jim Crow discrimination in public accommodations and transportation,
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and
• The Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Finally, it must be emphasized, Ricks’ use of military language should not be construed as mere metaphor. As in a military campaign, the Movement suffered casualties. Beyond the assassination of King, many on the front lines experienced devastating trauma to body, mind, and spirit. When Ricks describes the casualties, he is reminding us of the high price many Americans paid by demanding the full rights of citizenship. He is also reminding us, both individually and as a society, of our obligation to protect those freedoms secured at such a high cost. It is an especially timely and important message in today’s political climate, where voting security sometimes is used as a cover for voter suppression.

Highly recommended.

[Sandie]

In this very readable, thoroughly researched, and revealing book, Ricks, a noted military historian, examines America's Civil Rights Movement as if it were a military operation . Ricks clearly admires The Movement and the courageous men and women who changed America, some of whom died in the line of duty and others whom Ricks believes suffered the same PTSD as combat veterans. Part of me looks at his use of war in connection with what was a shining hour of nonviolent resistance with distaste and skepticism, but the Movement's history remains riveting and compelling. Ricks allows the reader to experience the terror, pride, and sense of loss experienced by ordinary Black Americans and civil rights workers. But he misses the mark when his narrative reaches Nashville in 1968, which ended in Dr. King's assassination. Because he sees it as a failure in military terms, he does not fully understand the meaning of Nashville, including the heartbreaking circumstances that brought Dr. King there. He omits the reason that called Dr. King to Tennessee. It was the death of two sanitation workers, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, crushed to death in their garbage truck because they were not allowed the same worker protections as white sanitation workers. Ricks takes advantage of historical revisions and his own numerous interviews with survivors to give us a fuller picture. He rightfully gives women like Diane Nash, Fannie Lou Hamer, and others long overdue recognition. (I was disappointed to learn that the honored leader Bayard Rustin refused to give the women any place on the podium at the storied March on Washington.) For me, a meaningful part of the book was the strength and beauty of the demand by Lawson, Nash, and others that their adversaries in this good war (adversaries who would happy see them brutalized and dead) be shown humanity.

Ricks' final analysis is both hard and hopeful. Like Ricks, I hope that America will live up to the work and sacrifice of The Movement and the promise of Black Lives Matter. I found Waging a Good War a valuable read even if I could not fully buy Ricks' premise.

[Alissa]

This book is fantastic. Ricks, a military historian, breaks down the "fronts" of the Civil Rights Movement under the lens of organizers acting as skilled battle leaders (who were prone to PTSD just like those serving in Vietnam at the same time). The timing of this release could be fortuitous, just ahead of midterm elections - Ricks gives readers a lot of insight into how to successfully plan and execute similar acts inspiring social change, which I hope to see in coming months and years.

[Alma Angotti]

I don’t often give books 5 stars but this was well researched, well written and an incredibly interesting and different perspective on the success of the civil rights movement.

[Porter Broyles]

This book was a decent overview of the history of the Civil Rights. It tried to overlay a militaristic approach/basis for how civil rights movements acted and behaved,

While this was interesting, there were times that I felt he was stretching to get the events to conform to the hypothesis.

Still a solid overview of the period.

[Individualfrog]

Over the last decade (oh my god it's ten fucking years of this) the 'progressives' of the internet have gotten more and more fond of advocating violence. You know the tweets: "you cannot defeat fascism with the power of love", "always punch Nazis", "Luigi did more for health care than millions marching", etc. One key claim in this line of anti-pacifism is that the Civil Rights movement has been watered down and defanged by school history books, sometimes with the implication or outright assertion that Martin Luther King and the SNCC didn't accomplish anything, that's just what THEY want you to think, and it was their violent counterparts like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers who did. Maybe in the course of explaining that Rosa Parks wasn't some random tired lady but a seasoned activist, they'll mention she wasn't committed to nonviolence after all; maybe they'll quote MLK's "a riot is the language of the unheard" to pretend he was in favor of riots. Anyway, if nonviolence on the part of Gandhi or MLK worked at all, it was because their adversaries had morals and humanity, which is not true of ours.

This book is an interesting attempt to emphasize both that the Civil Rights Movement is over-simplified and Disneyfied by school and popular history, and that its activist groups the SCLC and SNCC were indeed absolutely committed to nonviolence, by analyzing it in the terms and mindset of military history. The strategy, tactics, logistics, training, organization, discipline of the "nonviolent army" of activists; the planning and execution of each "campaign"; where there was victory and where there was defeat or retreat; how the "troops" were trained, moved, fed; how intelligence was gathered on both sides and how the response of the enemy helped or hindered the action. Writing about it in this unusual way makes the familiar strange and newly interesting; it brings to the foreground different details (how did they get all those people to Washington anyway?) and less-famous figures (through the organizational genius of Bayard Rustin, that's how.) It also attempts to make the Movement more palatable to these modern pro-violence progressives. Because it's like an army, you see.

Along with the more recent "being violent is based" school there has long been another lowercase-conservative critique of post-1967 protests, using the Civil Rights marches as a model, that says they are all goofy disorganized hippie shit, a circuslike atmosphere of "freakiness", unlike the dignified, suit-wearing Civil Rights activists. It is somewhat in reaction to that, I think, that the SCLC has been criticized as ineffective -- tone argument! Respectability politics! etc. In some ways it's the same thing that Malcolm X hated about nonviolence: Why should I have to limit myself, why should I not have the full range of human activity available to me, in order to placate and ingratiate myself to the stupid, indefensible people who hate me? Probably inevitable in any story like this, to me it was the early activities of the Nashville Sit-In movement (so compelling that for decades people called their activities some form of "(Blank)-In") and the Freedom Riders that were most fascinating and electric. Trained by Septima Clark and James Lawson, directed by Diane Nash and James Bevel, the activists were utterly committed, disciplined, unyielding, walking directly into the jaws of death. They did role-playing exercises where they practiced being abused, insulted, attacked; they performed reconnaissance missions to learn exactly where everything was and what would happen; they sang songs and prayed. When you watch them they seem to be from a different era, though so wonderfully alive and human. And those kids are from the SNCC, even less distant from our progressives today than the SCLC. Just look at the name, Southern Christian Leadership Conference; none of those words apply to progressives anymore. I agree that the Civil Rights Movement has been sanitized for popular consumption: but it is not sanitized in favor of pacifism; it is sanitized in the direction of individualism and lowercase-liberalism. It is the organization and religion that have been stripped out. Organization, discipline, community are pretended away, only atomized heroes remain. Churches no longer gather people, nor are they treated with any reverence. It is impossible to imagine a protest group today singing hymns together in jail; it would be corny. It's not just These Kids Today; the slang has changed but my whole life the number one commandment has been Thou Shalt Not Be Cringe.

It was already in the later sixties, when the hippies found it unbearably unfashionable to wear suits like their inspirations did just a few years earlier. Then being a hippie became cringe. Because fashion drives all things, but people still want to make change, despite earnestness and religion being tacky, people have decided to retcon the Movement as "actually" having been the people who do still seem hip and cool. I have always found it astonishing the extent to which Malcolm X seems a time-traveller, utterly not of a different era; his ironical attitude still as cool and modern as ever. Ricks in this book is fairly scathing on the Black Panthers, pointing out that for all their militaristic style, they were far less organized and disciplined like a real army than the nonviolent organizations that he focuses on. Living in Oakland, I have learned a lot about the Panthers, and admire a lot about them, just like I admire a lot about Malcolm; I live very close to a traffic light which, at the very beginning of their activity, they got the city to install in order to make for a safer walk to school for children in my neighborhood. But I don't think their supposed violence accomplished anything. Malcolm never hurt anybody as far as I know, at least after he got out of prison. The Black Panthers defensive firefights were disasters; and they pretty much all ended up in prison, in exile, or dead. And they were formed after the Voting Rights Act, so I'm not sure how you can give them credit for the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement.

We all know that the alt-right was grown in a thick vile soup of online troll contrarianism. It's often true that villains think they are the good guys, and are doing what they think is right; but MAGA as a whole, crawling out of that soup into the world, is based on doing what you know is wrong, just for the thrill of being naughty. It is the 2-year-old's "you can't tell me what to do", it is the teenage edgelord's "look at me, I'm saying the n-word, aren't you shocked??", it is the Andy Kaufman "ha ha, I shit my pants on purpose as a troll, so if you think I'm disgusting and smell bad, you're the stupid one!" They wouldn't admit it, but progressives, too, feel this perverse desire. None of them would ever actually do anything violent; but talking up the hygenic virtue of violence gives them the thrill of defying their boomer parents, and gets attention online. We can't forget too that so many people are so fucking stupid and ignorant, maybe because of the way the civil rights struggle has had the edges sanded off in school, that they somehow think it's some kind of revelatory surprise that nonviolent protest involves innocent people being hurt or killed. (Personally, I learned this in fucking elementary school, but then I'm older than most/all millennials.) Of course the actual people involved knew this, of course it was the entire point. The people in this book talking about their clarity of thought and feeling of release and being alive when they deliberately set out to be killed is terrifying and inspiring. Could I do it? I don't know.

It's interesting to read this book right after Peace and Bread in Time of War by Jane Addams. Though it was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner, and Addams being only incidentally a writer, this book feels in comparison like it was written for children (not helped by the fact that the only copy in the Oakland library system is the large print edition.) The explanation of military concepts and military history analogies are strangely basic and shallow. Of course, the two books are very different: Addams is recounting her personal experience in a failed, 'top-down' movement against a war, where Ricks is writing a history of a successful, 'bottom-up' movement against a social system. (Yes, I know, "successful" is only relative, obviously racism is not "solved". But the idea that it's worse now than when people's homes were being bombed because they sat down at a restaurant is simply absurd. It is absolutely incredible to me that people say the difference between the English in India or the apartheid regime/Klu Klux Klan in the South and MAGA today is that the former were less racist and more humanistic.) Ricks admirably emphasizes the role of women in the Movement, and emphasizes both how vital they were in reality and how they were marginalized and disrespected by the male leaders. He is occasionally critical (again in a strangely basic, didactic way) of the leaders, particularly King, when they made strategic missteps; I'm not sure if I agree with the emphasis he places on how much King hated being imprisoned, but it does humanize him. But the biggest difference is that Addams wrote in an era when one could still hold up peace as an ideal that people believed in, and now even to make pacifism acceptable, one must dress it in the terms and concepts of war.

[J Earl]

Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954-1968, by Thomas E Ricks, is an excellent history of the movement that concentrates on strategy, planning, and executing the plan.

I was surprised to read that there weren't more books or research papers using the military perspective since it so clearly parallels military thought. Ricks does a great job of bringing the analogy to fruition without resorting to making it sound like a cliche. One of the strengths of the book is the highlighting of lesser known yet vital people involved in coordinating and planning so many diverse actions.

The other major takeaway from the book is one Ricks states clearly, we need to both remember the movement and learn the organizing principles so that we may use them to re-fight the same battles against those who would restrict voting rights as well as reinstitute other oppressive policies.

Highly recommended for everyone from the historian to the activist. We must learn from the past so that we may use those lessons in the present to make a better future. For all!!

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

[Dale]

I am loath to read stuff that has military doctrine overlaid on it like management, leadership, and nonmilitary history books, but somehow it works for Thomas E. Ricks. This book looks at the civil rights movement as a military operation and will keep your attention. Very interesting.

[Brennan]

A compelling and fascinating account of the Civil Rights Movement, with a real focus on the leadership and strategy of the movement, and a much-appreciated emphasis on some lesser known figures. I think sometimes the book suffers from overindulging in its military metaphor, particularly with some of its asides, but the book’s thesis, that the Civil Rights Movement was able to succeed in large part to its relentless discipline and its ability to think strategically, is persuasive. The great successes of the Movement occurred when it had a strategic goal, a clear plan on how to accomplish it, and a plan for what to do after accomplishing it, while its failures occurred when it lacked those qualities. I also found the theme made most clear in the chapters on Freedom Summer extremely compelling: the injuries and even deaths sustained by members of the Movement were their means of attack upon the caste system. Every photograph and story of brutality and murder that penetrated the public consciousness did incalculable damage to the system the victims of that violence opposed. The discipline of these activists made that possible.

It’s a trite observation to say that the protagonists of the Civil Rights Movement were brave. But it is impossible to read this and not be struck by the courage of these people. The point this book makes, which I agree with, is that to reduce the legacy of these heroic (if occasionally deeply flawed) individuals to their courage does them and us a disservice. Their goals were achieved because of their discipline, planning, and the courage to put them into effect. Remembering them for courage alone diminishes their accomplishments, and promotes the misconception that courage alone is enough to prevail. To honor these people, we must not only remember them for all the aspects of their Movement that brought them success, but also put those qualities into practice in our present day.

[Elizabeth Sulzby]

Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, by Thomas E. Ricks is a detailed history that outlines how Martin Luther King, Jr. studied Gandhi's methods which used long term planning, detailed organization all the way to when an objection was gained and AFTERWARDS. I am so glad I remembered this book by a journalist who writes on the military. Thus he picked up on the strands of military type organization and methods in the Civil Rights Movement.

I went back to this book after listening to Prince Harry read his book, Spare, and reading about his PTSD after his various military services. And learning about all the efforts Harry and Meghan have sstarted and/or supported for mental health, and especially for military service members.

Ricks has a section on the many Civil Rights movement leaders died young and compares it with the number of military service members who also died young. He also includes in that list James Bevil who suffered from mental illness and became non productive to the Movement.

I was a "Navy wife" to a man who went to Naval War College in Newport, RI. My husband would share his books and make comments about his classes so I have a good bit of information about military organizations and planning. Also, one of his former Captains (USS Suribachi( worked on the Law of the Sea (which, ironically, the USA did not adopt). We visited him at the U.S. Naval Academy where he was Commandant of Midshipsmen after he became a Rear Admiral. Anyway, these experiences and many more both in Civil Rights and as a "Navy wife" led me to admire Ricks' book greatly.

I plan to reread this book now that I have written about it. I am writing this on Martin Luther King, Jr., Day 2023.

[Will]

I get asked frequently about history books I would recommend. Usually I don’t do blanket posts for a book, but try to cater it more to the person’s personal interests. That being said, I recommend “Waging A Good War” by Thomas E Ricks for anyone.

This purpose of this book is to use a military historical approach to evaluate the nonviolent aspects of the Modern Civil Rights Movement through 1970. It focuses not only on the “great man” version of history, but really lays out the strengths of the supporting leadership and individuals to evaluate the successes of each “campaign” in regards to the overall nonviolent strategy with an emphasis on the SCLC,CORE, and SNCC.

At a time when contributions of the African American community are literally being erased from government websites, I can’t think of a better time to read a book about the impact of this movement. The book is alternately inspiring and heartbreaking, and a great overview of key aspects of the movement for those of you that need, or want, a refresher on the subject. The epilogue is especially relevant in talking about how modern advocates for equality can adapt the successful strategies for our modern political environment.

[Jarrett Bell]

While I came into this book a bit skeptical of Ricks’ military history lens on the civil rights movement, by the end I found it quite compelling. Through chapters on a series of distinct campaigns and moments in the civil rights movement (e.g., the Freedom Rides, integrating Ole Miss, the March on Washington), Ricks, a seasoned military historian, shows how military history can help us better understand why the civil rights movement succeeded. Through James Lawson’s sit-in trainings in Memphis, Ricks demonstrates the importance of training in preparing white and Black protestors to withstand verbal and physical violence without responding in kind. Through the movement’s meticulous planning and strategizing ahead of its campaign in Birmingham to desegregate public transit, Ricks shows how King and Bevel identified their targets (usually places with violent sheriffs who were likely to make a mistake), collectively established campaign goals early on and communicating them to their opponents from the outset, strategized about what actions were required to succeed (e.g., nonviolent marches, boycotts), stayed one step ahead of their opponents (e.g., inviting children to march and have hoses turned on them in front of national TV to regain the initiative), enforced discipline among activists (e.g., monitored marches for violence), and created a path for reconciliation at the end of the campaigns so that progress would stick and white opponents could back down without being humiliated. In other examples (e.g., Albany, desegregating Ole Miss), Ricks makes clear what happens when the movement faced cunning opponents who failed to make mistakes like hosing children on TV or punching a protestor in the face or who did not have a plan entering the confrontation and instead acted entirely reactively (e.g., sending troops into Ole Miss but without riot gear). And like wars, many of those involved died fighting or suffered from PTSD after. In Waging a Good War, Ricks pens an illuminating history and certainly added to my understanding of the civil rights movement, especially the role of training, discipline, and strategy in its success.

[Michael]

Really moving and inspiring, though it has some drawbacks.
Ricks, a military journalist, decided to write this with a military framing that adds little, and feels unnecessary. The history is also streamlined to a simplified and fairly linear narrative. The result is well-paced and quite readable, though there are undoubtedly deeper and more nuanced histories of the topic.

[Taylor Hudson]

pretty good, interesting time period. very eye opening
to the darkness surrounding that period. Doesnt shy away from both the strengths and weaknesses of the leaders of the movement

the wartime jargon and forced comparisons get old though, and feel obstructive about 40% in and so on.

[Thomas Ray]

Dewey 323.1196073
2022

[Rona]

At first, I thought the author was trying too hard to frame the civil rights actions of the 50s and 60s in terms of military planning and discipline. I got it about halfway through.
There was a lot I didn’t know.
There’s so much more to this than the typical big ideas and great man history that I was taught in school.

[Doris]

As the subtitle says, this is a look at (a fragment of) the Civil Rights Movement with particular attention to its similarities to a protracted military campaign. The author makes a good case for his view; however, I think he belabors his point excessively at times. I think I would have preferred just a straight up history. (But then, I have no fondness for military history.)

[Hilary]

This was awesome. Lots of really terrible things but incredibly fascinating and well-organized. As the title states, Ricks goes through much of the Civil Rights Movement and shows through facts and comparison how it compared to past and modern warfare. Which isn't something you think about for what was known as an intentionally nonviolent movement. Moves chronologically, good pace. I listened to the audiobook and really enjoyed it. I did end up checking out the kindle version too, but that was mostly to fact check names and other details I'd missed in the audio. If I could, I'd highlight the majority of this book with facts I didn't know. It was almost embarrassing.
Stand out learnings:
- Gained a more realistic understanding of the Kennedy brothers and their involvement. Was less idealistic than I'd originally thought.
- All the FBI info was awful. Hoover was compared to a medieval lord to the presidency because he provided intelligence but needed to be "watched and placated". Technically supports a monarch but is a threat with his won army and information at the same time.
- Just how absolutely wild it is that the FBI essentially declared war on MLK with the phone taps. How said it was that King cried when Hoover called him "the most notorious liar in the country". And how the FBI sent an anonymous letter to King and his wife encouraging him to commit suicide.
- How groundbreaking the March on Washington was and what a logistical success it became. I feel like it's a given for me to see organized marches nowadays, but they really didn't have a blueprint for this and did amazingly. The people were in and out of DC in a single day. Now if only they'd included women.
- Ghandi was frequently brought up, either as someone studied him or by the author relating to a particular event. His nonviolence principles seemed to be the bedrock of the Movement. They used those principles to come up with truly innovative solutions. Again, it all seems more commonplace to me nowadays, but so much of this was brand new.
- For instance, using kids and college students for protests to protect the jobs of adults
- Just the whole Freedom Summer campaign and bringing in white college students from all over the country to Mississippi to encourage voting registration. How in 1964 there were whole counties all over the state that didn't have a SINGLE registered black voter. And then out of 17,000 attempted registrations, only 10% were approved.
- Also the PTSD that came for pretty much everyone. Anyone participating for the standard 60 days of continuous involvement had significant issues. He compared King after 10 years of war to Eisenhower after 4 years of war (they were both having a really hard time and had terrible coping strategies but that's pretty much all they could do).
- James Meredith and the absolute fiasco of Old Miss registration. It wasn't part of the Movement and showed it with very dramatic differences.
- The sheer violence of the reactions to Freedom Rides, particularly the Anniston attack. That was scary simply reading about it; I can't imagine being there.
- James Bevel compared to Sherman because they both invented new approaches and took risks that were shocking to many but ultimately essential
- Compared the first full-scale sit ins to paratrooper offensives. I was amazed at how they had wave after wave of kids ready to go in and replace anyone arrested. Really amazing levels of support (like all the drivers during the bus boycotts) and a willingness to serve.
- Selma compared to the Battle of Yorktown as the last big Movement campaign for voting rights and outmaneuvering the enemy
- General lack of cohesion after the Civil Rights Bill and difficulties spreading northward, like into Chicago

This was more a history book scattered with war references, so it didn't feel clunky or forced. Really incredible. Loved the audiobook. Feel like I learned a lot.

[Matthew]

The subtitle of this book is a bit confusing, but the Pulitzer prize winning author and military historian examines not the military during the Civil Rights movement, but rather how the Civil Rights movement molded itself in a military fashion (many of the early leaders were WWII vets) who utilized the same precepts: rigorous training, planning, discipline, reconnaissance, strategy vs. tactics, chain of command, etc.

Easy to read and packed full of information, I learned so much about the movement .... and if I may raise a personal, unrelated gripe. One of the main people featured in the book is Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth -- who actually spoke at my university before he passed and I was lucky enough to hear -- but shamefully I never learned about his contributions to Civil Rights in high school or even college. It would be like meeting Ronald Regan in the 90s and only having learned he was some former Hollywood actor.

Highly recommend!!!

[Bookreporter.com Biography & Memoir]

In WAGING A GOOD WAR, Pulitzer Prize winner Thomas E. Ricks offers a fascinating look at the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and ’60s. With a particular focus on the nonviolent efforts of this era, he has crafted a concise history of how the Movement’s leaders and volunteers operated like generals and soldiers in war.

On December 5, 1955, after a whole day of Black citizens boycotting the segregated buses in Montgomery, Alabama, Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech subtly indicated the boycott’s strategy and tactics. Strategy, as Ricks defines it, is what your goals are, while tactics are the “how” that will accomplish the goals. King’s strategy and tactics were simple --- Black Americans deserved to be treated as equal members of society. Christian ideals like love and forgiveness “provid[ed] the spirit” and strategy, while inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi “furnish[ed] the method,” the tactic of active nonviolence.

To sustain the 381-day boycott among as many Black Montgomerians as possible, communication was crucial. Black churches were like “command posts…secure locations where plans could be made, training sessions held, and orders issued.” Logistics, like in war, were just as important. How would people get to their jobs and appointments without buses? Car pools and a transportation committee stepped in.

The boycott even had its reconciliation phase planned, or, as the US military would call it, “Phase IV Post-Conflict Operations.” The goal was to “find a way to live together down the road.” When Montgomery buses dropped their racist regulations, former boycotters were to be respectful and dignified, refraining from just bitterness. Some Black ministers rode buses just to supervise others.

Segregationists responded to Montgomery by counter-attacking the wrong enemy --- the NAACP. Viewing the courts and legal systems as the best vessel for civil rights, the NAACP denounced active resistance like the boycott. Ricks draws an interesting comparison. When the French government captured rebel Algerian leadership and opened the door for more radical leaders, more active roots for civil rights became the only option once the NAACP’s hands were tied in courts.

Enter the Nashville lunch counter sit-ins. James Lawson, knowing they could not be successful everywhere, followed the “concentration of force” military ideal and dispatched reinforcements to replace arrested protestors. Outside the restaurants, white allies would call the police if violence erupted and fare better as witnesses in prejudiced courts. Diane Nash, a key Movement figure, was struck by the symbiotic love that she and her fellow protestors had for each other, trained to shield one another from beatings. In combat, a deep trust between soldiers, or “unit cohesion,” increases more effective decision-making and communication.

The Freedom Rides sought to stake equality’s flag deep in enemy territory. A federal ruling protecting interstate travelers from state segregation laws was almost never enforced, which the Movement took as a challenge. Segregationists responded with violence; Ricks dubs attempted arson assassinations, and the appalled reactions from the media, “victories.” He compares the attacks to combat casualties, which are “always regrettable, but sometimes necessary in order to fulfill the mission.” This would have been an appropriate time for Ricks to discuss Black figures who did not agree with everything in the nonviolence playbook. Many, like Malcolm X, did not believe that accepting casualties or enduring gang attacks were righteous prices to pay.

The Birmingham campaign targeted segregated voting rights. Once marches and arrests exhausted their reinforcements, James Bevel, Diane Nash’s husband, enlisted children, hoping the police would violently suppress them and be seen on national television. The move worked. White businesspeople in the area saw their ventures dwindle and cried for change, to the chagrin of Birmingham police and politicians.

The fight for equal voting rights continued in Selma, Alabama. About 600 protestors marched toward Montgomery, arranged in military-esque companies and smaller squads. Unit cohesion thrived since the squadrons already knew and trusted each other. Throughout the Deep South campaigns, Ricks contextualizes the region’s Confederate history. Just before the march reached the Edmund Pettus Bridge, he reminds readers that Pettus was a Confederate officer and Klansman. Police brutally attacked the marchers on that bridge; 140 were injured, half of whom required hospitalization. The horror was broadcast live on television, which led to President Lyndon Johnson voicing support for what would become the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

After Selma, WAGING A GOOD WAR reads like falling action. Ricks discusses Stokely Carmichael and the emerging “Black Power” movement, the Black Panthers and, more recently, Black Lives Matter. With his narrow focus on nonviolence, he has produced a detailed, gripping and easy-to-grasp account of the Civil Rights Movement. His military analogies are potent, helping to unwind the Movement from color blindness and the “gauzy sentimentality” with which many Americans often romanticize it. The people and protests are depicted as complex pieces in a struggle for equality, regardless of how one feels about the ideals and tactics of nonviolence.

Reviewed by Sam Johnson

[Ryan]

A novel perspective on the Movement. Ricks shows the successes (and failures) of the Movement are in part because of the best practices of waging war. However, what is unclear is whether the leaders themselves were aware of this. Though maybe that's irrelevant in the long run.

[Mikhail]

Very good history of the Civil Rights Movement as a whole, with an emphasis on what worked and what didn't. Ricks does tend to overemphasize his military analogy, a remnant of his reportorial background, but overall, very good book.

[Andrew Carr]

Academic disciplines are often assumed to be about content (Biology studies living things, political science studies politics etc), but they're just as much collections of specific ways of looking at the world. Military history today is concerned with how organisations achieve their goals, through adaptation, training, strategy, and communication. As such, this discipline provides a compelling, revealing lens for Thomas Ricks to examine a critical question: why did the US Civil Rights Movement succeed?

At its core, Ricks argues the Movement had a good sense of strategy: how did each action help achieve the communication and political impact sought. The role of nonviolence was central to this, shifting the nature of the struggle away from one which the authorities understood and could master (violence) and towards a form which deftly engaged the audience (the civic and business leaders, along with national power sources who could force segregationists to change). Just as importantly, their more successful campaigns - and some were failures - reflected significant prior training, logistics, discipline and analysis. And they had viable leaders, both as masterminds (Lawson, Nash, Lewis, Bevel) and as public figures (foremost among them MLK).

Ricks is a seasoned historian, and shows a deft hand managing the vast material. Throughout the book there is always a sense of an author sorting themes and events, relating them to examples across world history, while staying authentic to the material. Ricks uses military history to show what the movement did, what those within it experienced and help explain why it worked, while still telling a gripping, moving narrative. For those like myself with only a modest knowledge of the period, this sense of organisation provides an excellent way to learn the history.

Along with helping shape the material, the connection with military campaigns is revealing of the challenges faced by those within the Movement. While others have shown this in brilliant psychological profiles (such as Taylor Branch's magisterial histories), Ricks shows a broad sweep of figures who though part of a 'civil' campaign, felt stresses akin to combat at the time, and in the years after showed signs of PTSD and the harm of war. This is a hard book at times to read, with the violence and tension brought to light, and a varied (and hence compelling) tempo across the book.

I'd strongly recommend this book to anyone involved in current day politics and action groups. Again and again we see that mere good will, mere moral rightness was not, and could never be enough to achieve change. It is the easiest task in the world - and often great fun- to think up tactics (what will drive eyeballs or make your adversary mad). But what defines movements that genuinely change their environment is strategy - what intentions are sought and which actions may then help us meaningfully step towards those goals? Encouragingly, Ricks argues there are signs the BLM movement in the US has learnt many of the same lessons, seeking to build in and through communities, and valuing organisation and logistics as much as likes and retweets.

Recommended.

[Emma Dufresne]

Personally, I treated this as a fitting introduction to the civil rights movement since it's told from the lens of nonviolence: a concept I've been so curious about but never truly invested in.
Considering how vast the subject matter is, it was also nice to have this anchor, this nonviolence theme, to hold onto. And it was an anchor for all members of the movement who were challenged to break code battle after battle.
For me, the use of military lingo to describe the movement's actions such as doctrine, training, reconnaissance, tactics, strategy, and logistics elevates the idea of nonviolence to the same status as any military action in terms of fighting for justice.
My mentality has shifted from viewing nonviolence as something passive to something that provokes confrontation. And I am convinced it is the most effective means to seeking justice and reform. Here are just a few quotes that stand out to me:

"As Gandhi put it, nonviolent resistance 'does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant.'"

Reverend C. T. Vivian: "You do not allow nonviolence to be destroyed by violence."

James Lawson: "The definition that most Americans have of nonviolence is that if you get hit in the face then you take it, you don't do anything...." He preferred the definition "the tenacious power of the soul" or "clinging to the truth."

Two things that I still struggle with... first is the role that the threat of violence played in deterring further violence by bad actors. This was most obvious to me during the bus burning outside of Anniston, Alabama - a dangerous leg of the freedom rides in 1961. Black smoke from a smoldering bus filled the air and lungs of the bludgeoned freedom riders whom continued to get beaten by rioters. Police officer, Floyd Mann, steps in with his gun and threatens to use it if the mob did not stop: "I just put my pistol to the head of one or two of those folks who was using baseball bats and told them unless they stopped immediately they was going to be hurt." So... in this circumstance and probably others, would their nonviolent efforts have been as successful without that threat? From this standpoint, you could view violence as an important aspect in creating an effective outcome: preventing violence, saving lives, and promoting peace.
This also leads into my second struggle, which is determining if there is a point when violence becomes too heavy a price to pay... If the horrific scenes for the freedom riders turned even worse, for example, or thinking of Bloody Sunday in Alabama in 1965. Did the leaders ever weigh progress against violence and if so... when could violence prevail over progress? It's a sign of a good book when you have more questions than answers at the end!

So much can be said about how inspiring each individual is. To fully personify nonviolence in all words and actions begs the greatest respect from me.

[Thomas George Phillips]

Mr. Ricks did not offer much in the way of new information. I was aware of much already from reading previous historical books on Civil Rights struggles in the 1960's. But what I took issue with Mr. Rick's account is his absence of placing the blame on the Party of Jefferson as opposed to the Party of Lincoln. Mr. Ricks frequently uses the word "politicians" in referring to those who adamantly opposed any progress towards Blacks and their rights in the South. For instance, Mr. Ricks blames Nashville Mayor Roy Harris, who in 1960, denounced the protestors in his city as being equal to criminals. According to Mr. Ricks the Mayor agreed to a meeting with the students at Vanderbilt to discuss their allegations; and the Mayor, according to Mr. Rick's account, was totally condescending. As it happens the mayor was a Democrat.

In 1956 a Democrat Judge banned the NAACP in Alabama. However, Mr. Ricks does not identify said Judge's party affiliation. I took it upon myself to research the Judge's Decision.

Also of note is the notorious segregationist Mississippi James Eastland, a Democrat, who looked upon the NAACP and the Civil Rights Leaders as Communists.

Nor does Mr. Ricks mention that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was successfully passed by 98 percent of Republican Senators. Every Southern Democrat Senator voted against said Bill; including Richard Russell of Georgia, LBJ's mentor; Richard Byrd of West Virginia, Hillary Clinton's mentor; and J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, Bill Clinton's mentor. Furthermore, when President Johnson was signing said Bill into law at the White House, in back of him, among others, were Dr. Martin Luther King, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Republican Minority Leader Everett Dirksen of Illinois. President Johnson hands the first pen to Senator Dirksen. For without him and the Senate Republicans the Southern Senate Democrats would have been successful in filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. All of this was noticeably left out of "Waging a Good War".

Also of note is Governor George Wallace's inflammatory comments at his 1963 Inaugural Address: "Segregation now, segregation forever." Mr. Ricks leaves out that Wallace was a Democrat.

[Joseph Stieb]

This book intrigued me bc I like Ricks and I wanted to know what a "military history of the CRM" would look like. I'll say up front that the title is a big misleading: this is a strategic history of the CRM that uses military metaphors. But that lens gains credibility because A. The CRM was so incredibly strategic, following key principles of strategy, operations, and tactics and B. CRM activists thought of themselves as engaged in non-violent coercion (not simply moral suasion) against key vulnerabilities in the Jim Crow system and C. Their experience of constant stress and the potential of violence was not unlike war, and many came away from their experiences dealing with immense trauma.

So Ricks walks through the fairly standard story of the CRM with an eye to its strategic decision-making, as well as fair-minded critiques of its mistakes. I strongly agree with his critique that a key reason the CRM fragmented was a shift from activism as a way to seek discrete political ends to activism as a means of cultural expression (i.e. SNCC under Carmichael). And Ricks also makes a good point that King's later campaigns in Chicago and DC were not as well thought-out in a strategic sense, which may have been because of the sheer trauma he had already undergone.

Some historians might scoff at this book bc it is mostly based in secondary sources, although Ricks definitely did his homework. Still, I think the book is worthwhile for 2 reasons. First, focusing on the strategy of the CRM helps us explain its effectiveness and pushes back on the narrative that they suddenly changed everyone's minds. They DID change minds with their ideas and actions, but they succeeded in passing laws and dismantling segregation by identifying and exploiting pressure points in JIm Crow and the larger political system. Second, the mere fact that Ricks, a famous military writer, wrote this book will probably draw people in to reading serious history about the CRM in ways that (unfortunately) other authors might not.

So while this book isn't essential, it's still well done and useful.

[Alex McAuliffe]

Liberal pablum about the civil rights movement refiltered (poorly!) through a "military" lens - presumably so that he could get his editors and publishers in line for the project, famed as he is as a writer of general nonfiction about ostensibly military topics. The subject matter is endlessly relevant and interesting, of course, and I checked this out because the premise is intriguing, but the lazy writing piled up so quickly.

In the author's preface he mentions that "the nation's arc" (read, euphemism for the current slide into illiberal mob rule) set him to reading about the civil rights movement, and further that 'delving into these hundreds of books reminded him of strategy and tactics, problems he'd seen in his war correspondency in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Somewhat overwrought, but fair enough.

Within the 50 pages I could stomach, however, the "military history" brought to bear has nothing to do with this boasted journalism or first-person insight; instead it consists of silly assertions like these:
- allies can disappoint and surprise you, like Vichy France did for Roosevelt and Churchill (?)
- leaders should focus on the essential and the strategic, like Eisenhower (?)
- means of transportation can become emblematic of conflicts in collective memory, like 'the taxis of Paris driving soldiers to the Battle of the Marne in 1919' (???) or the little boats of Dunkirk in 1940 (this somehow *militarily* clarifies the stakes of the Montgomery Boycott and Freedom Rides)

I do not understand how we're supposed to better enter into and understand one of our country's most troubling and inspiring epochs, a principled, disciplined, grassroots insurgent movement for dignity, through lazy "military" analogies to powerful elites like Roosevelt, Churchill, or Eisenhower.

Readable, the way that junk food goes down easily, and terribly dull compared to its overprocessed materials just the same.

[Mike]

I'm a Tom Ricks fan -- I very much enjoyed Making the Corps, The Generals and First Principles. He's said on Twitter that he considers this book, Waging a Good War, to be his best. I'm not sure -- I loved Making the Corps -- but Waging a Good War is excellent.

It's an excellent history of a decade and a half of the Civil Rights Movement, but from a fresh and compelling perspective. Ricks is a military correspondent, and he examines the Movement in the light of a series of military-style campaigns. He argues that Movement leadership used a variety of tried and tested techniques also used by militaries preparing campaigns: rigorous training, careful strategic planning, assigning tactical initiative to leaders in the field and on the ground, post-conflict reconciliation and more.

It's a persuasive presentation. It's certainly helped me to understand the Movement in a new way.

He covers desegregation and voting rights campaigns across the South. Rosa Parks, the bus boycotts, the Freedom Rides and Freedom Summer and much more are all here. He writes about Selma and the march across the Edmund Pettis bridge. Montgomery, Nashville, Oxford, and Memphis, including Martin Luther King's assassination, all get the attention they deserve.

He writes about other leaders of the SNCC, SCLC, NAACP, CORE and the Black Panther Party as well. The interplay and interactions of those leaders when their organizations collaborated and competed are interesting.

This would have been a first-rate history of the Movement, just on the detail with which Ricks reports the facts. His analysis of the Movement in terms of military discipline is, as far as I know, brand new. This is a piece of scholarship that advances our understanding of that time, and that effort -- still ongoing!

I loved it.