{"id":41920,"date":"2014-12-02T05:09:16","date_gmt":"2014-12-02T05:09:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=41920"},"modified":"2014-12-02T05:09:16","modified_gmt":"2014-12-02T05:09:16","slug":"recommended-reading-listening-and-viewing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zenpundit.com\/?p=41920","title":{"rendered":"Recommended Reading Listening and Viewing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Top Billing! SWJ \u00a0Small Wars Journal El Centro Senior Fellow Dr. Robert Bunker Wins The Elihu Root Prize<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Elihu Root Prize is an annual award by the US Army War College for the best article (or articles) published in Parameters on the topic of Strategic Landpower. The Quarterly’s Editorial Board selects nominees from a given volume year (Spring-Winter) and evaluates them based on the degree to which they enhance the understanding of any aspect of Strategic Landpower, whether within a historical or contemporary context. Any article published on any theme related to Strategic Landpower is automatically considered, but winners will be selected based on analytical depth and rigor. The prize(s) include an award certificate and honorarium, and are presented by the Commandant of the US Army War College at an annual ceremony.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Friend of ZP blog,\u00a0Robert Bunker’s<\/strong> prize-winning article\u00a0“Defeating Violent Nonstate Actors.<\/a><\/strong>”
\nParameters<\/strong><\/em> 43, no. 4 (Winter 2013-14): 57-65<\/p>\n

Hearty congratulations to Dr. Bunker!<\/p>\n

Infinity Journal<\/strong><\/em> – Jim Storr \u00a0Warfare and Strategy<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

….The definition of warfare seems quite simple. In essence, it is \u2018how it is done\u2019. So, for example, much military history is the history of warfare; how wars have been fought. That could refer to war at: the national level; the theatre or campaign level; or the battlefield, tactical level. Much of the history of warfare looks very much at the mechanics of the tactical level: for example, studying trench warfare in the First World War; or the tactics of the Battle of Britain.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A separate aspect of warfare refers to how armed forces can, do or should operate. That is the non-historical part. In war, history is often our only guide to the future; so the history of warfare really should inform future practice. It could be said that the only real value of the study of the history of warfare is how it informs practice (other than as an interest in itself). Many people, mostly men, do find it intensely interesting. I do. However, to reiterate, the only real value of the study of the history of warfare is in how it informs practice. (I restrict myself largely to land warfare simply because that is what I know most about).<\/strong><\/p>\n

The definition of strategy seems more problematic. Let us take the three options above. They are intended to be broad and cover a range of areas. So, if you don\u2019t agree that strategy is one of the above, please ask yourself whether it is close to one of them.<\/strong><\/p>\n

When defining strategy as (1) \u2018the art of generals\u2019, we open up a can of worms. Firstly, \u2018art\u2019 probably should mean \u2018craft\u2019. It probably doesn\u2019t mean \u2018art\u2019 as opposed to \u2018science\u2019 so as to differentiate it from the technical aspects. It probably means \u2018craft\u2019 as in \u2018what generals do\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If one defines strategy as \u2018the artistic or creative bit\u2019 you run into problems. Do you, for example, imply that the creative aspects of a Brigadier General\u2019s plan in, say, the Western Front in the First World War is strategy? Probably not. It\u2019s probably better to consider \u2018what generals do\u2019 as an aspect of warfare, recognising that some aspects of warfare are intensely human and therefore involve creative and inspirational elements<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

James Joyner – Hagel’s Fate was Sealed Long Ago<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

….In both instances, the qualities that got them chosen made them poor fits. In an administration that sees foreign policy as an extension of domestic policy, simply asking “What’s in the US national security interest?” isn’t enough. In case after case, the administration chose half measures that would appease the Democratic base while minimizing criticism from Republicans on the “weakness” front. \u00a0So, they announced a military surge in Afghanistan that was far less than requested by the commanding general while simultaneously announcing a premature deadline for withdrawal. They authorized military action against the Gaddafi regime in Libya, the Assad regime in Syria, and against ISIS in Iraq and Syria but without any obvious consideration of the strategic consequences.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It didn’t help that Jones and Hagel were outside the inner circle of foreign policy advisors that Obama had brought with him from the campaign and the Senate. Their willingness to work across the aisle may have won them plaudits from the broader foreign policy community but it meant that they would never be trusted team players. They were constantly being sniped at by anonymous staffers in the press and were ready scapegoats for failed or unpopular policies. Meanwhile, the president has shown steadfast loyalty and infinite patience with Susan Rice and others.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Hugh White –China is trying to intimidate America<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

….We explored <\/a>some aspects of this issue on The Interpreter back in May, specifically in relation to China’s conduct in its maritime disputes with Japan and its Southeast Asian neighbours. I argued then that China uses these disputes specifically to weaken US regional leadership and strengthen its own by showing that America cannot or will not any longer support its friends and allies in Asia militarily as it used to do.<\/strong><\/p>\n

….But I think there may be a more specific answer: the main target of China’s sticks in the East and South China Seas is not its neighbours themselves, but Washington. It wants to convince America to step back from leadership in Asia by convincing Washington that it will have to confront China militarily to preserve its regional primacy, and that the costs and risk of doing so would be immense. It is trying to intimidate America, in other words. There is a good chance that it is working.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Friend of ZP blog and terrorism expert J.M. Berger<\/strong><\/a> has a new book coming out!<\/a><\/p>\n

War on the Rocks BACK TO NIGHT RAIDS: COUNTERINSURGENCY OR COUNTERBUREAUCRACY?<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Cicero Magazine<\/strong> <\/em>–\u00a0National Security Policymakers\u2014No Experience Necessary?<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0What the War Classics Teach Us about Fighting Terrorists<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Steven Metz – Understanding the Enemy: Inside the Mind of the Islamic State<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

USNI Blog –To Defeat ISIS, Hawkeyes Required<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Parameters<\/em> –\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Understanding the Strengths and Vulnerabilites of ISIS<\/a>\u00a0by W. Andrew Terrill<\/strong><\/p>\n

Studies in Intelligence<\/strong><\/em> –Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to America<\/a>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

Michigan War Studies Review<\/em> –One Hundred Victories: Special Ops and the Future of American Warfare<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Chicago Boyz –On Russia and Ukraine<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

O’Reilly Radar –Privacy is a concept, not a regime<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Presentation Zen –10 tips for improving your presentations & speeches<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

FOXnews – Researchers Unearth New Clues About Ancient Computer<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Richochet – When Did the Left Turn into Rick Santorum?<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Atlantic<\/em> – What the Media Gets Wrong About Israel<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The New Republic<\/em> – Feminists need to Stop Spreading False Alarms about Sexism<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mother Jones<\/em> – This is the Left’s Confidential $ 100 Million Plan to win back the States<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

RECOMMENDED LISTENING:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Break it Down Show Podcast – All about the Story with Jim DeFelice<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

RECOMMENDED VIEWING:<\/strong>
\n