Recommended Reading – 100% Cyber Free Edition
America 3.0 Are Breitbart.com’s Standards Falling Down?
Not the Singularity – Then they Came for your Snail Mail
Ribbonfarm –Players versus Spectators
Slightly East of New – New Edition of the Origins of Boyd’s Discourse
Scholar’s Stage – Rise of the West: Asking the Right Questions
Slouching Toward Columbia – On Reappraising the Civil War
The Glittering Eye –Defining Genocide Down
Campaign Reboot –Constraining Creativity
The American Thinker- The Fall of the Humanities
Page 3 of 3 | Previous page
prbeckman:
July 10th, 2013 at 10:44 am
This too: “Alliances: three cheers for the Anglosphere” by The Strategist ASPI
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/alliances-three-cheers-for-the-anglosphere/
…
“The Anglosphere makes it possible for Australia to operate a defence force and prosecute a sophisticated strategic policy that we would have no chance of matching based solely on our own resources.”
Madhu:
July 10th, 2013 at 2:16 pm
Slightly tangential to one of the links above but still related, the desire to “refight” aspects of Vietnam in Iraq and Afghanistan is surely going to be one “lens” through which future scholars view the intellectual doctrinal (emotional?) underpinnings of both campaigns.
.
My coulda woulda shoulda: what if as much time was spent studying the history of American relations in the Cold War periphery countries, especially South/South West Asia, as in attempting to relive Vietnam only as a win this time?
.
Pat Buchanan over at The American Conservative (I know, I know) repeats one such myth of our relations, that we had ideological Cold War allies in South Asia as opposed to an alliance of opportunity–which is nothing against opportunists. That is life. “They chose us,” he claims. Goodness. After all that has happened in that region prior relating to 9-11. Well, maybe that’s not the myth so much as we reacted instead of the active approach we took starting from the 1950s. We were more involved than our mythos allows us to see, IMO.
.
I hope veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan don’t do the same thing, view all future conflict through the lens of “we didn’t have enough resources to do COIN.”
.
But here I am being hugely unfair, I think, since I do the same thing when I look at that part of the world through my own emotional lenses….
Madhu:
July 10th, 2013 at 2:17 pm
What is up with that America 3.0 review? Geez, I didn’t recognize the book at all. Arthur Herman, eh? Read some of his columns once and it completely fits into my thesis in the comment above.
Madhu:
July 10th, 2013 at 2:20 pm
Oh, sorry, to clarify: the Brietbart review of America 3.0 mentions Arthur Herman’s book. I’m assuming same as the columnist? If not, forget my comment above. Still, it’s a weird review, isn’t it?
Madhu:
July 10th, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Zia Mian is quite good to read on the history of the American military training ‘fellow’ armies in that part of the world, especially the 1950s. Also on the Harvard scholar types and economic policy from the 1950s.
Cheryl Rofer:
July 10th, 2013 at 2:34 pm
Eh, War on the Rocks has one female contributor, so the address “gents” is not quite right.
.
Sadly, continues the dearth of women in national security and foreign policy commentary.
.
🙁
tdaxp:
July 10th, 2013 at 3:27 pm
Hey Madhu, are you referring to the tdaxp review?
Madhu:
July 10th, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Yeah, a la Cheryl, I would like future posts to add “and to our crazy commenting sister Madhu, and other non-crazy sisters” to the gents address.
.
What? The arty sites have all kinds of fun with this stuff. Get in touch with your inner artist, milbloggers! You know you want to!!!!
Madhu:
July 10th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
@tdxap – no, the Breitbart review. Haven’t had time to read yours, will when I get the chance.
Madhu:
July 10th, 2013 at 3:34 pm
Sorry, I always mess up letters in words.
Scott:
July 10th, 2013 at 3:42 pm
I see a number of women posting at Duck of Minerva ( http://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/ ) including Charli Carpenter and Megan Mackenzie. But I figure someone should start a group blog (obviously not me, since I’m male) that would be all women.
Cheryl Rofer:
July 10th, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Um, try Nuclear Diner, Scott! There are three of us!
.
But we don’t discriminate. It’s possible we might add one of the other sex in the future.
zen:
July 10th, 2013 at 6:05 pm
Quick:
.
hey Cheryl – thanks for catching that. My bad. The folks over at WotR seem to be recruited primarily from the Warlord Loop group, which has a number of sharp women defense/natsec experts as members. There was also a general call by one of the editors prior to their public launch for list members to get involved if they wished and submit posts. Hopefully, some of the women will step up. Some won’t/can’t though due to the nature of their USG job, same for many male members, open forums are not in the cards for some DoD positions
DrTdaxp » Science and Steam:
July 11th, 2013 at 3:22 pm
[…] @zenpundit: Recommended Reading – 100% Cyber Free Edition zenpundit.com/?p=24636 top stories by @WWATMD @jhagel @WarOnTheRocks @tdaxp 24 hours […]