zenpundit.com » Blog Archive » Odierno’s Reading List

Odierno’s Reading List

General Ray Odierno, Chief of Staff of the US Army has a pretty good prospective professional reading list in the works with many titles of general interest to people in national security and foreign policy fields. He’s asking for feedback too.

Minus the Mustache of Understanding, whose inclusion seems to be required on lists of these kind, there are titles here that I would strongly recommend including McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom,  The Landmark Thucydides, Luttwak’s Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire and the best of military historians and strategists like Paret, Keegan, van Creveld and Parker.

I would recommend adding Acheson’s memoir Present at the Creation, for an understanding of policy and national strategy and Alan Schom’s critical and monumental biography, Napoleon Bonaparte: A Life, for a comprehensive understanding of Napoleon’s campaigns in context with his psychology and political leadership.

But what seems to really be missing from the General’s list is a good book on intelligence history and tradecraft.

Since the list is intended for military officers, it would not have to be a technical critique along the lines of Roberta Wohlstetter’s Warning and Decision (though that would not hurt) but something that gave a good overview, spymaster biography or history, would help.

I can think of many, but I’d like to see what the readership would nominate in the comment section. Have at it!

Hat tip to Lucien.

6 Responses to “Odierno’s Reading List”

  1. Chris Says:

    Lists like this might be intended for military officers but they have a great deal of importance for wider audiences too. Campaigners, managers of all types and anyone in a job which demands a swift and decisive decision making process can benefit from these types of lists.
    Its also interesting how rarely lists like this originate with UK military officers, it simply isnt part of the culture here, which I think is a huge weakness in the the way our military operates as it doesnt provide the sort of exchange of views both within the military and outside it, which are critically important in driving a knowledge culture.

  2. Cheryl Rofer Says:

    I’ve recently read Present at the Creation, and recommend it highly. I would add to your comments, Mark, that it provides a look at how we got to here – the reconstruction of pretty much everything in international relations after World War II – and a sense of how things once were in policy-making circles.
    .
    The way the book is written is part of the latter. Acheson pretty much keeps to the policy, rather than the personalities, although there are places where you can tell there’s more to the story. And, of course, it’s a men’s club. Not particularly putting women down, just that they don’t exist in this world.
    .
    The first part is important, too. It’s easy to look back and think, for example, that the Marshall Plan just happened because it was the right thing to do. It was a big political fight in Congress, with all the placating and horse-trading that go on today. Not quite the intransigence, though. And clowns, although not as many and easier to ignore.

  3. J. Scott Shipman Says:

    Hi Zen,
    .
    Both of Charles Hill’s books: Grand Strategies and Trial of a Thousand Years. Also, one of Hill’s recommended works of fiction, People of the Book a fictional history of the 30 Years War is also worthy of the list. 

  4. zen Says:

    Hi Chris,
    .
    “Its also interesting how rarely lists like this originate with UK military officers, it simply isnt part of the culture here, which I think is a huge weakness in the the way our military operates”

    I have heard this complaint regarding anti-intellectualism in the British Army before, sort of the “dark side” of their historic pragmatism and tradition of an expeditionary force adapting, enduring and muddling through against more doctrinaire or grandiose enemies. There seem to be flashes of intellectuality in the US Army and wider military – ex. the circle around George Marshall, the military reformers of the 1890’s Army and War Secretary Elihu Root’s office, the AirLand Battle people in the 70’s around Starry, but this has hardly been the norm.

    Hi Cheryl,

    I agree with you. Acheson is a “must read” for anyone wanting to understand the history of the Cold War, the evolution of American national security and international diplomatic history. Even geoeconomics.

    Re: Women

    They were scarce in positions of power in the days of the Eastern Establishment. There were a few, Frances Perkins, Eleanor Dulles at State, Clare Booth Luce in the House but not too many others at that level.

    Of course, also scarce were non- elite WASPs, who were seen as parvenus and bumpkins ( if Midwestern or Western protestants) or “the wrong kind” ( if ethnic Catholics or Jews) or just simply excluded altogether ( Blacks, Hispanics, Asians). Some of the hostility toward Truman was due to his small-town origins outside of the Eastern Establishment or Southern Patrician classes, his connection to the corrupt, Catholic, Pendergast Machine and his small-timer cronies. The “ruling class” was a tight, all-male, social group of select universities, prep schools, military academies, wall street investment banks and the Episcopalian Church.

    Hi Scott,

    I concur. Need to read the Thousand Years ( and about 1000 other books!). Your bringing up fiction is a smart categorical addition – I have a blind spot in that regard sometimes.

  5. Chris Says:

    Thanks for the response Zen, interesting point. Its a fascinating difference to be sure. What I find curious is that internally there is a culture of (relative) intellectuallism, or at least the appearence of one, in the UK Armed Forces. The people I know who have gone through officer training are well educated in both the practice and the theory of strategy, conflict and wider theories of international relations. I think a side by side comparison of the Marine Corp and the UK Army would reveal weaknesses in that intellectualism on the British side, but the differences are not disasterous in scope (in my opinion).
    Sometimes its almost as if there is a lack of confidence in exposing the culture of the military to the outside world for fear of criticism. The military is very secretive in general about the training of young officers (although this is changing, note the recent BBC series on Sandhurst) and there is an insecurity around civilian, particularly political, criticism. This leads to a certain amount of insularity which is fairly unhealthy, particularly in the world we live in now, when more than ever I think the military needs to have an open door policy if it is to drive up recruitment, particularly amongst graduates, who are used to a world in which blogs, essays and books are never further than an iPad away.
    I think in time this will change, as a new generation who have worked closely with Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq rise through the ranks with a recognition that a learning culture is a profoundly positive influence on a military.

  6. J. Scott Shipman Says:

    Hi Zen,
    To Hill’s point, we’ve a real need to re-embrace fiction in the training/education of our professionals. I’ve had to force myself to re-engage on fiction. Until I found Boyd (and this blog) most of my reading was history and literary fiction…fiction is now fashionable again…Hill has a pretty good list from which to start. 


Switch to our mobile site