5 comments about Scipio Africanus: Rome's Greatest General.

1. Scipio is one of the great Roman heroes and I was looking forward to this book with the hope that it would offer a biography more in historical context than earlier works. It may have succeeded but as I was unable to finish it, I'll never know. There is a good bit of theorizing about minutiae of interest only to an historian and none to me. The thread of Scipio's life eventually go so lost in interpretations and asides that I gave up.



2. I am writing this review to correct what are very serious errors by the first review that appears here, and what also appear to me to be a bewildering perspective given in that review, in the hope that those who are not familiar with the history of the second Punic War and its aftermath may be more encouraged to read the book and the few that have proceeded it - including the history of Polybius. In the first place, the first review completely fails to note that Scipio Africanus faced a far more professional set of generals than the likes of Marius, Sulla, or even Julius Caesar. He did this, despite the lack of full support of Rome. To compare Scipio to them is absurd as their circumstances and the significance of what Scipio faced and they did are so far apart as to render comparison meaningless. The reviewer fails to note Scipio's defeat of 4 Catharginian armies in Spain, 2 more in Africa, before meeting Hannibal at Zama; all armies were led by well seasoned and highly professional commanders. At Zama Hannibal had advantage of his veteran troops, 80 war elephants, and a well manned cavalry. The two sides were rather evenly matched. Hannibal's veterans troops were at the rear - so why do you think Scipio had Laelius and Massinisa first drive the Hannibal's cavalry off the field and then encircle Hannibal's veterans? Luck? Now comes a typical Hannibal apology - "It wasn't Scipio that beat Hannibal, it was the Roman cavalry" - Oh lord! Let me digress a bit to demonstrate the nonsense of this type of "reasoning". Try saying it wasn't Montgomery and later Patten that drove Rommel all over North Africa, it was the British and then the American armored divisions. The comment is absurd of course, but that is my point! Scipio fully realized the criticality of a well disciplined cavalry and very effectively built one, first around Laelius, and then around Laelius and Massinisa. He also built an effective naval force as he needed it. He revolutionized Roman tactics, which of course the likes of Marius, Sulla, and "what's his name" inherited, but never really did themselves. As for a grand strategy, that began with Scipio's father and uncle who decided to press on to Spain rather then turn back to face Hannibal - the battle of the Tinicus was more of a standoff then a victory for Hannibal! It appears that the reviewer would benefit from a bit of background reading and not rely on Hollywood movies for his "facts" and perspective.
   
   To call Scipio Rome's greatest general is quite appropriate - after all, within 53 years after Zama Rome went from being an Italian city state to ruling most of of the world it knew - did the others accomplish that? Hannibal and his country lost it all. But, as Hart had told us, folks like the loser, not the winner.



3. Dr. Gabriel,the widely-known and respected military historian and ethicist served justice in this new volume in his series of biographies of the world's greatest generals.
   While historians and textbooks present the adventures of Hannibal, this author brings to the reader the genius of Scipio as one of the greatest generals of antiquity whose talents are proven -among many others- in the brilliant strategies applied in the battles at the Tower of Agathocles, the Carthagian Camps, the Great Plains, Zama, and the Ebro River in the early years of 200 BCE. All make it evident that he set Rome on its imperial course, expending Rome's power over parts of western Europe, Africa and Asia. This unmatched military biography is a significant contribution to scholarly interest as enlightening reading to all who have interest in history.
   The thirty-five pages of notes and eight pages of bibliography witness to the author's thoroughness and deep knowledge of the topic.



4. Paul Grabiel's book "Scipio Africanus" is a stunning biography of one of the few Roman generals who never suffered defeat in military combat. The book goes far beyond a discussion on Roman Society, and the Punic Wars, it also teaches many lessons that can still be applied in military arts today.
   
   The book's main focus is on the military campaigns of Scipio Africanus across Spain and Carthage in The Second Punic Wars. The military campaigns culminate with the Roman defeat of Hannibal's army in the Battle of Zama. Each of the campaigns is laid out by discussing the strategic context of the battle and is supported by graphics depicting the layout of the armies.
   
   Scipio Africanus was a master at building alliances. He knew of his own army's weakness in cavalry, so he specifically formed an alliance with the Numidians, who were known for their master horsemanship. His ability to form strategic alliances carried over into other key areas, such as logistics. The old adage is that an army moves on its stomach. Scipio Africanus understood this very well, and he planned his campaigns to ensure that his army never moved beyond its supply base.
   
   What other lessons can we learn from Scipio that can be applied today? Scipio Africanus exemplified two key tenets of what is known in current military parlance by such buzzwords as the "Revolution in Military Affairs", or "Transformation". The first element was tactical innovation. Gabriel asserts that until his time, Roman legions could only maneuver in only two directions - forward and backward. Scipio Africanus invented the means for second echelon units to maneuver to the outside of the formation, enabling an envelopment of the enemy. At the time, these tactics were revolutionary concepts and caught many adversaries by surprise.
   
   A second lesson is on the standardization of equipment, with the corollary of integrating technological improvements. Gabriel writes of Scipio Africanus' adoption of the Spanish sword after the battle of New Carthage. Gabriel writes "With some design changes, it became the gladius hispanicus, the Roman army's basic infantry weapon."
   
   This book was my first experience with the Punic Wars, and it is a great book for the the casual reader.



5. Reading the differing views of reviewers Asaro and Augustin makes one thing clear: while the latter has obviously read the book, the former, despite being an ardent fan of Scipio, has not. Otherwise he would have noticed that Gabriel himself discounts the myth of the 80 elephants Roman propaganda gives to Hannibal at Zama, and also that Gabriel realizes that it was Hannibal who was responsible for luring the cavalry of Massinissa and Laelius from the battlefield. It was sheer luck that they returned before Hannibal's veterans cut down the Roman line--probably it was a matter of minutes that saved Scipio from defeat. At Zama the armies were not evenly matched. Hannibal was unable to bring back his cavalry from Italy, and with the exception of his last line of veterans, he had only inferior troops. Massinissa's betrayal gave Scipio a large cavalry advantage. It is clear that without Massinissa Scipio's chances of defeating Hannibal were non-existent. Scipio did not fight any great armies or generals prior to Zama. The Carthaginian commanders in Spain were largely incompetent, with the possible exception of Hannibal's brother Hasdrubal, and in his case Scipio failed to prevent him from escaping with his army largely intact to cross the Alps to attempt to join his brother in Italy, so that Baecula was untimately a fiasco rather than a great victory. To compare Scipio's victories against incompetents such as Hasdrubal Gisco with Caesar's victories over the likes of Vercingetorix or Pompey (a great Roman general himself, leading a first class professional army) is preposterous. And Scipio's "victory" against Syphax and Hasdrubal Gisco by the treacherous burning of their camps in the middle of the night while pretending to negotiate a peace treaty was dishonorable to say the least (similar to the Japanese "victory" at Pearl Harbour). Mr. Asaro further shows his ignorance by stating that the cavalry battle of the Ticinus was a standoff rather than a victory for Hannibal, which is total nonsense. Hannibal defeated the Romans at the Ticinus river, at the Trebia, at Lake Trasimeno, at Cannae, at Herdonea (twice), remained undefeated on Italian soil for over 15 years, and would have vanquished Scipio in the last battle ,had it not been for the lucky (for the Romans) return of Massinissa. It was a tragedy for the world that lack of resources did not allow him to win the war in Italy, for after Zama the militaristic Roman Republic became the predatory Roman Empire. To understand the implications, read Faulkner's Rome: Empire of the Eagles. And for a better appreciation of what really happened at Zama, see the article by Mosig & Belhassen in The International Journal of the Humanities, 5:9, 2007, pp. 175-186.

5 comments about One Soldier's War.

1. This is a grisly account of the two Chechen wars (1990s and to this day) Mostly this is an account of how the Red Army fights, but there is ample insight into the religious nature of the conflict. The stories of the brutality among fellow members of the Army is astonishing, even among the oficers. The treatment of Russian prisoners, young soldiers utterly unprepared to fight a war, by the Muslim Chechen warriors, is equally astonishing. This was complete savagery. The Red Army has not learned from WW II; they're still just throwing people at the adversary and they're not so amply supplied with bodies anymore. The book is a series of independent vignettes and not in time order, nor clustered together by subject. It is a reporter's notebook.



2. It is just a coincidence that I finished reading this sad and terrifying book while at the same day news tell us:
   
   "MOSCOW -- Missiles, tanks and other heavy weaponry rolled through Moscow's Red Square in the annual Victory Day parade Friday. President Dmitry Medvedev said "the true purpose of weapons and military equipment is to give reliable defence of the homeland....We must treat very seriously any attempt to sow racial or religious enmity, foment the ideology of terror and extremism or meddle with other states, particularly any attempt to revise boundaries"
   About three million Second World War veterans are still alive, their pensions are small and many live in poor conditions... Mr. Medvedev's first decree after taking office was to order that all Second World War veterans receive housing by 2010."
   
   So here we have it, full hypocrisy and how it is to be the soldier. "All Quiet on the Western Front" comes to my mind, because "One Soldier's War" is as much terribly shocking, candid, and will testify forever about nonsense of wars, espceially wars against insurgencies and ethnic nations seeking independence.
   Just consider this excerpt, young soldiers' line of thinking:
   "...It would be realy cool if they led Yeltsin and Dundayev out onto the landing strip and let them get struck into each other. Te one who cripples the other wins. We stand around and cheer them on: we cheer our guy and the Chechens cheer theirs. And no war, no corpses. That would be much simpler and more just than this arrangement, where the wrong people do the fighting."
   
   This statement is a pure gold essence, like the whole book, showing how armies serve to fulfill agendas of leaders, politicians and presidents.
   "One Soldier's War" is a must read, it took my breath away from me.. Deeply personal, and well translated, it shows total and terrible demoralization of Russian soldiers during the wars in Chechnya. Although you will not read a lot about merciless fighting and horror of it (this is quite obvious and vivid background of the book), the bulk of the text presents what was happening to the conscripts within their units, death stalking them almost with the same intensity as on the battlefields. Ramifications of such wars are immense and summarized with passion Babchenko. Total disarray of Russian army reflects for sure the state of Russia after USSR collapse in 1991, no doubt. But is it better now? I am not sure.



3. I have been going back and forth to Russia on a regular basis for the last 13 years. I have had the fortune to make the aquaintance of many ex and active Russian soldiers in my wanderings of the regions there. I find this book to be one of extreme exaggeration and an over dramatic amature attempt to shock the reader into a kind of unthinking, stupified, state of horror. While some things are accurate in the big picture such as the conscription of new recruits, the "on the job" training style, atrocities commited by both sides, for the most part this book is making a "grain of sand into a beach". That is a quote of my friend who fought in both Chechen wars. If you want a good but inaccurate, unprofessional biography of someones experience there, this is the book for you. If you want a more, this is not the one. Worst 20 bucks I ever spent, and I'll mark it down to propaganda.



4. Lots of stories about Russians soldiers stealing, scrounging for food and brutalizing each other while at the same time accepting that their fate is to die at anytime at the hands of the Chechen rebels. Little about the overall story in Chechnya (1st or 2nd war). But it's quite clear throughout that the Russian soldiers are absolutely terrified of "the Chechens." Although I might be sympethic, this book makes the regular Russian army look pretty bad...
   
   This book could have been very good had a different approach been taken to its purpose and construction.



5. A disturbing insight into Russia's two wars in Chechyna seen through the eyes of conscript Archady Barachenko. Not short on stomach-churning graphic descriptions of atrocities and the general brutality of this under-reported conflict where the soldiers fear of being killed was only surpassed by their fear of being captured by Chechen rebels. Russian army does not come out of this well either in terms of the abuse it metted out to its own soldiers.
   Not for someone wanting analysis of the campaigns, stategies etc as this is purely focussed on one young soldier's day to day determined efforts to stay alive. Sometimes a difficult read as the translation struggles to convey the desired impact.

5 comments about Company Aytch.

1. This book was written by a Confederate private who served in the Army of Tennessee for nearly the entirety of the Civil War. Published in serial form after the war (one reviewer suggested that his material was written during the war, such as a diary would have been; however, that reviewer is simply incorrect, and the distinction is important enough to warrant mention) and then in book form in 1880, this memoir of civil war experiences from a private's perspective is priceless in terms of primary source material. Watkins is frank and unapologetic, a quality that provides the historian with unique material in terms of dealing with the sentiments that the non-elite confederates often held.
   
   Watkin's candor is probably the most important feature of this work. His hatred of Yankees and often equally strong hatred of some of the Confederate command suggests an individual who probably defies current simple notions of Yankee/Rebel mentality. Watkins is often witty, especially when reflecting upon feelings that we would now understand as being imbedded in "class struggle". Of course, Watkin's frankness extends to his views of blacks and slaves, illuminating an individual who was both racist and yet not in the generally held stereotypical manner.
   
   I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the Confederate experience from the perspective of the non-elitist point of view. This book would be great for a high school curriculum covering the Civil War era, and would also be a good part of any similar college-level syllabus. This is a relatively quick read (especially when compared to such works as "Mary Chesnut's Civil War" or "The Diary of Edmund Ruffin"), which makes it ideal for those just beginning their exposure to the Civil War or more specifically to the Confederate experience.



2. 
   While this book is not for the beginner Civil War reader it is a must have for those that want to understand just how it must have been. Along with "All for the Union" "Bayonet's forward" and other Company level collections.
   
   This is an editted version and has cleaned up some of the grammer and errors per the author.
   
   Further the text presumes that the reader knows what is going on and makes scant reference to the common names for the battles he fought in or other forms of reference, hence the not for the casual reader comment earlier.



3. My wife and I enjoyed reading this book together. It captured the day to day grind of life during the war years that southern people love to read about. We both recommend this insightful book.



4. This book lives up to its reputation. If you have any interest whatsoever in the Civil War, whether you're from the North or South, you need to read this book. It has an immediacy that's lacking in history books, because the author was there and lived through some of the most hellish events in the war. And the kicker is that he was a great writer... Imagine if Mark Twain had fought in the Civil War and then wrote about it afterward. He has a gift for making you feel the exhiliration, terror, heartbreak, and drudgery of life as an infantryman in the Civil War... with a degree of literacy and introspection that raises the writing above merely a 'this happened and this happened' sort of account. His writing style is very accessible, too- this book is timeless.



5. Sam Watkins is amazing and a part of you wishes he were still around signing books.
   
   There are primarily two first hand accounts of the Civil War that get qouted a lot this one and Eliha Hunt Rhodes's "All for the Union." I like this one the best because unlike the guy who wrote "All for the Union" Watkins never moved beyond the rank of corporal. When Sam Watkin's joined the "glorious cause" in 1861 1,200 marched away from his home town 65 returned including Watkin's himself. Sam states many times that this is not a history of the war, just a few things that have stuck in his memory 20 years later.
   
   The book flows in a mostly chronological order and includes personal observations of Jackson, Bragg, Johnstone, the Honorable Jefferson Davis (who shook Sam's hand) and many others. These accounts are extremely insightful and even eloquent.
   
   There are the accounts of battles in which Watkins fought 1861, Murfreesboro, Shiloh, Corinth, Perryvile, Chattanooga, Missionary Ridge and the darkest of all Frnaklin.
   
   There are also extremely entertaining elements of social history that are not directly related to battles but give you a good idea of how an average solider of the south lived and how they had fun; of these the segment "pass the butter" is probably the most hilarious. Then there is also the story of how Sam was arrested while on leave and one of his old friends from his home town got him out of trouble.
   
   Overall-This book has something for everyone and if Watkin's is correct and this book was not intended as a history it is definatly one of the most entertaining not-histories that I have read.

No comments about Confederate Struggle For Command: General James Longstreet and the First Corps in the West (Texas A&M University Military History Series).

5 comments about Hunting the Jackal: A Special Forces and CIA Soldier's Fifty Years on the Frontlines of the War Against Terrorism.

1. Billy Waugh is a rare kind of man. His book gives us a look behind the scenes of Special Ops and clandestine operatives.



2. Great book....easy to read. Lacks substantial and detailed operational insight probably due to confidentiality. Overall a great book by a great American.



3. I found the book readable and informative. It was written in a narative that was easily followed. Information that will be of value to those that follow the current state of the world.



4. Great book. The title is deceiving though there is little about Carlos. The actual capture of Carlos is also somewhat anticlimactic. Overall though, it's an exciting read about the life of a special forces warrior. I recommend this book to anyone who enjoy stories of war and espionage. One thing is for sure...Billy Waugh is a hero!



5. Billy Waugh takes you through almost 50 years of life in the Special Forces and CIA. Although the title focuses on Carlos the Jackal, he is actually a small part of the book.
   
   Since I am approaching 50, it's hard to imagine being 72 and running around in Afganistan. That's downright inspirational. This part of Waugh's life is mentioned several times in Jawbreaker by Gary Berntsen.
   
   A fascinating story.

No comments about Wheels On Fire: My Year of Driving (And Surviving) in Iraq.

5 comments about George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots.

1. This is a great book! It is extremely well researched and powerfully written.
   
   Composed by career soldier and historian David Palmer, "George Washington and Benedict Arnold" tells the story of two Revolutionary War patriots who left such diametrically opposed legacies, despite life trajectories that were at one time so parallel.
   
   George Washington and Benedict Arnold were both more than just patriots and American soldiers, they were the heart of the American military movement against the British.
   
   Washington was the brains, soul and conscience of the Continental Army, while Benedict Arnold was the sword of the Revolution. A soldier of tremendous courage, talent and energy, he managed, time after time, to turn defeat into victory on almost every major battlefield and changed the course of the war.
   
   Indeed, Arnold's victories eventually convinced the French to enter the war on the side of the Americans. Shortly afterward, Spain and the Netherlands followed, turning a rebellion into a world war and all but ensuring a British defeat.
   
   But as the war progressed and Arnold failed to recieve the recognition and rewards he desperately craved, the thoughts of America's premier soldier turned to treason. Had he succeeded in his betrayal, Washington would surely have lost the war and America her independence.
   
   How is it that two men with lives that paralleled and intertwined so closely have legacies so vastly different?
   
   George Washington is remembered as America's greatest soldier and the father of his country, while Benedict Arnold is still considered the greatest traitor in the history of the United States.
   
   To quote the author:
   
   "Your thoughts become your words.
   Your words become your actions.
   Your actions become your habits.
   Your habits become your character.
   Your character becomes your destiny."
   
   "George Washington and Benedict Arnold" is a tremendously good read, recommended for those interested in America's war for independence and the impact of character on destiny.



2. Gen. Palmer came and spoke to the Betty Martin Chapter of the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution to review his book. We found out that every penny of profit that would be his is sent to fund Mt. Vernon, Washington's home. The book is an interesting contrast of two men with eerily similar backgrounds. Gen. Palmer contends that the difference in the outcome of the two lives is CHARACTER. Gen. Palmer is an excellent speaker. In his book, he presents a clear picture of the lives of these two very different men - each of whom played a major role in the foundation of our country. The character of the man determined the content of that role. I gave copies of the book as gifts at Christmas.



3. I enjoyed this book for the good narrative that it is. Most of my pleasure came from learning the rough details of Benedict Arnold's treason. I had only known him as a traitor prior to reading this book, but had no idea that he was "America's Hannibal" prior to becoming a turncoat, nor was I aware of the reasons for his treason or the way in which he tried to execute it.
   
   The book is a quick, enjoyable, and easy read, which I am also grateful for, because if it weren't, I probably would have put it down and tried to find something more comprehensive on the subject of Arnold to read instead. I have never read a book on a subject such as this that contains no bibliography. Palmer includes a few suggested readings at the end of the book, but it is only about 10 books altogether, and two of them are prior works of his own.
   
   Even within the text, Palmer several times says something like "as a prominent modern historian says 'George Washington was...'"
   
   Well, who is the historian?!
   
   This unwillingness to cite anyone else within the text or in a bibliography really bothered me the whole time I was reading the book. The whole thing reads like something a high school student would turn in to his history teacher. The only difference between this book and the student's essay is that the book is nearly 400 pages long.
   
   There may be some very good reason for not including a bibliography or giving a prominent modern historian credit for his words in the text. I am not accusing Palmer of anything, only saying that these things bothered me quite a bit.
   
   Now, I will find some more books on Benedict Arnold to get the full story.



4. Reading Palmer's great book made me think about today's events in Iraq. Those who don't read history believe that most events that occur are happening for the first time. They believe things have never been worse. As Palmer so eloquently writes, Washington had major problems in his execution of the war and had not only enemies on both sides, but cabals of fellow military men working for his defeat and wanting his job. Some of these narratives were revelations about our first president. He lost more battles than he won, the war was going terribly and the morale of his troops was so low they were loathe to re-up when the terms of their duty had expired. More than once he had to intervene to keep from losing troops to desertion. He acted firmly in handling all these obstacles and persevered to win the war and save the fledgling nation. There may not have been a CNN, MSNBC or NY Times working to bring him down. But, as Palmer tells us, there were many who published the most vicious things about Washington, and sometimes, directly to him, and wished him ill throughout the war. So, some things never change. Things go wrong in wars. People, including the Congress, carp and think they can do better. Washington had the character to see the plan through to its satisfactory ending. This in spite of having a "friend" like Benedict Arnold working eventually to defeat him and the rest of the new nation. Palmer's book serves as a defining account of the Revolutionary War and why George Washington deserves a day in his honor. It should never have been diluted into a "President's Day." Read the book and learn more than you've ever known about Washington, Arnold and the Revolutionary War.



5. Excellent piece of history -- incredible detail -- easy reading. Dave Palmer is a retired general and past supervisor at West Point. He is also a terrific speaker and a very ethical person. (Obviously, I have heard him speak, after which I bought the book).

5 comments about Wiser in Battle: A Soldier's Story.

1. Lt General Sanchez confirms what the few intelligent American voter suspected. The Neo-Conservatives in The White House and The Pentagon have created a mess in Irag. Now because of field commanders that are finally being shown the respect that they did not receive until General Petraes was placed in charge; there has been more military successes on the ground in Irag.The Neo-Conservatives will soon be out of power after The November Elections. Whether it's President McCain or President Obama; their priorities should be to allow the Generals on the ground control the wars in Afghanistan and Irag and to not politicize the war for their own agendas be they liberal or conservative. LT General Sanchez would make a good Secretary of Defense for either President. He has the experience,the intelligence, and the respect for the Generals on the ground. The fact that he is a Latino would also honor the many Latinos that are in harms way and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. A country that has yet to accept them as equal Americans. In fact Senator McCain and Senator Obama would be wise to use him as their military adviser during their presidential campaign as soon as possible. A great book, a great public servant and a great Latino role model.



2. Perhaps he was. Certainly he makes a worthwhile case, and 30-plus years of service are not to be overlooked. He's understandably wounded in pride to think that he was forced into retirement while those in our government who should be (that's my opinion, not Sanchez's, BTW) remain in power.
   
   Pride, indeed, just might be this warrior's Achilles' heel. As other reviewers have pointed out, he comes across at times as self-serving and defensive.
   
   But he rightly returns his focus, time after time, to the men and women he led into battle. And though he makes his love for the service quite clear (again, 30+ years), he does not spare their blushes in his assessment of mistakes made, and steps that need be taken to learn.
   
   In the end, though perhaps it could have been edited by about 10%, this book is well worth reading.



3. ...is this book another self-serving attempt to place blame for individual and collective shortcomings elsewhere?
   
   I will say right off the bat that I served under then-Colonel Sanchez when he was a mechanized brigade commander in Kansas in the mid-90's. I found him to be very interested in his leaders' knowledge, skills and abilities, but also felt that the way he went about testing his subordinates at times bordered on complete and total micromanagement. As a brand-new officer, I didn't mind that as much because it told me that he was involved and engaged in what his unit was doing. However, I know it rubbed a lot of other officers and NCOs the wrong way.
   
   His section on brigade command leaves out some important facts about events at Fort Riley in the summer of 1995 and then the subsequent NTC train-up and rotation that I won't go into, but the way the section was written did put me on guard the rest of the way in terms of how he presented his case and what other critical details were omitted.
   
   I will say that I respect Gen. Sanchez as a commander and know that he had his hands full as the V Corps Commander based on the observations of friends who served on his staff. I believe a lot of what he says in his book to be true: his corps was woefully under-resourced due to the belief that the war in Iraq was "over" and the lack of detailed planning for post-combat operations doomed his legacy unit to have to learn on the fly, something that rarely pays off successfully- at least early on in the game.
   
   In Lt. Gen. (ret.) Sanchez's defense, he presided over some important victories in Iraq: namely the capture of Saddam Hussein and the killing of his two sons. Unfortunately for him, the Abu Ghraib scandal proved to be his undoing, no matter that the events occurred at levels well below him.
   
   As is the case with Lt. Col. (ret.) Nathan Sassaman's memoir, I would caution readers not to take everything at face value and understand that with these autobiographies, there is always going to be a modicum of self-serving revisionism. I know that for a fact in this book because I lived through one of the sections and found that LTG (ret.) Sanchez left out a key event that I had always wanted to understand how he viewed it and how it affected him as a commander. I was disappointed that it got nary a mention and truly made me question what else he was leaving out the rest of the way. I was disappointed mainly because in my heart, I truly respected Sanchez as my brigade commander and would have followed him anywhere as a young officer who had yet to serve under anyone else. He inspired loyalty in me, and I believe him to be a good man.
   
   In the end, I thank Gen. Sanchez for his service and believe that he tried his best. He has written a pretty interesting book about his career and life experiences. At the same time, knowledge is power. If this is the only account of the Iraq War you read, then you will come away with an incomplete picture of what happened there during that timeframe and what is occurring now at the 5 1/2 year mark.



4. I am so glad I read General Sanchez book. I am not military, so it was slow reading for me, but I believed the general as I thought he was most sincere. The book certainly cleared up a lot for me relating to what really happened with Iraq. Many thanks to General Sanchez. Larry Holland, Austin, TX



5. Preeminence requires military power. One of the reasons the United States has military power is due to a system that allows a hard working, talented son of a poor family in Rio Grande Texas to rise to the highest ranks of the army. "Wiser in Battle" shows how Ricardo Sanchez was able to apply his natural talents as a soldier to accomplish a successful military career. He proved himself successful in the profession of arms but more importantly he came to understand the need for multi-service and multi-agency coordination. After service in Yugoslavia and other Joint assignments, he was well prepared to be the coalition ground forces commander in Iraq after the defeat of Saddam Hussein regime.
   
   However he faced a situation where the American leadership was more concerned with maintaining political position than in supporting an intelligent Iraq national rebuilding effort. The cost was a painful and costly post-war period that would have been mitigated with a more intelligent and longer-term view of the problem of establishing a stable civil situation.
   
   The book is invaluable in shedding light on this difficult period when the United States was forced to deal with the realties of rebuilding a nation.

5 comments about Hill 488.

1. Great read, this book tells an interesting story with a good buildup and appropriate detail. Not specifically a history book since it's more a personal retelling of a specific incident, it reads a bit more like historical fiction, and is thus interesting and worth reading for more than just history buffs. Of course, it is a true story and almost an unbelievable one at that.



2. The ghost writer botched a decent history by trying to combine separate venues; i.e., history and story telling. Tried to immitate what was thought to be a Marine in combat - missed the mark - if you are interested in an intelligent first hand narrative of a Marine under fire read Eugene Sledge's "With the Old Breed" - you'll never forget that one.



3. This book is a welcome change from any thing about Nam to come out of Hollywood.The courage,selflessness and grit will leave you feeling proud to be an American.



4. DEFINENTALY A BUY. this is a great book, even though the fighting starts half way through. Once the fighting started i couldnt put it down. Literally. I was up for 3-4 hours straight finishing it off. great for anyone with a love for touching war stories. this book hits real deep. Semper Fi. (this is the son reviewing on mothers account)



5. Hill 488 is one of the most heart wrenching and unbelievable true stories about the Viet Nam war. Once you start reading you will not be able to put it down. These men are true American Heros

5 comments about Indestructible: The Unforgettable Story of a Marine Hero at the Battle of Iwo Jima.

1. I am a retired Marine and I generally read several books on the Marine Corps each year; I had never heard of Jack Lucas before this book. But, I came to believe that his discplinary issues, has resulted in the Marines excluding him from the general USMC history, we teach our young Marines at recruit trainng or OCS.
   
   I am glad I bought the non-abridged audiobook edition (part of daily commute). Its audio quality was pretty good. It is a good recounting of history, but someone should have listed to it before it was finalized on CD. There were repeations of several sentences which made we wonder if my CD player was on the blink. In addition, references to "126" should have redone they should have been redone as "1st Bn, 26 Marine Regiment". Better for non-Marine listeners.



2. There can be little doubt that this book wouldn't have been written if this aging hero had not been singled out by President Clinton during his presidency in a nationally televised State-of-the-Union address. Mr. Lucas was the President's special guest for the occasion, and one can understand why. While Lucas is an unquestioned military hero, he was less of a hero to his children and his first wife. (Those who were on the receiving end of his quick and violent temper may not view him in the hero light either.) A self-described womanizer, Lucas was the perfect foil for the Clinton plot to bolster the President's image by profiling a man who is living proof that no matter how badly you conduct your private life, it doesn't have to interfere with your service to country. This book will read like a poem to Clintonites, but may blanch a bit to the few of who still believe personal morality matters to whatever task you set yourself to.
   
   Lucas is a hero, and his professions of faith in the Lord who protected him not only on Iwo Jima but in several other major life crisis redeems this book and makes it worthwhile. But if your looking for the ALL American hero, better look elsewhere for reading material.



3. Mr. Lucas has just spent 212 pages doing nothing more than patting himself on the back and telling the public how big a hero he is. He also spends a great amount of time in stating how he relishes the limelight he is in and will go to any length to exploit the Medal of Honor to his own use. From some of key phrases in the book, the reader would think he was the only Marine on Iwo Jima. While I highly respect him for the action for which the medal was awarded, I do not respect the idea of using it to ones advantage. The author also seems to think that what he cannot accomplish with the Medal of Honor around his neck, his two fist will get for him.



4. Despite what some other reviewers had to say, it should be noted at the outset that Jack Lucas didn't finish high school, and obviously didn't go to Columbia for a writing degree. He simply lied his way into enlisting in the Marine Corps at the age of 14, and ultimately conned his way into frontline units until he finally reached combat at Iwo Jima. Having wanted to be a Marine and fighting since he was 11, his dedicated pursuit of his goal seems impossible to believe, but it did happen, and this is his story.
   
   Having met Jack, he is exactly like what the story sounds like. He is proud, patriotic, and unabashed in his belief that his actions that day were less significant than those who never returned. I found the story of his life after the war to be interesting, especially what his own wife would attempt later.
   
   This is not going to tell the story of the whole war, and isn't a literary work that rivals Shakespeare, but it is one man's story, and well worth the time to read it.



5. This book is full of self praise and a large ego. Not a humble word in it. The author talks of his buddies, roommates, and other people with barely mentioning a name or how they influenced his life. He does mention his family and the influence of his mother and deceased father. What he did on Iwo Jima was heroic and highly commendable but, he just keeps on about himself and his Medal of Honor. His claims of coming from a valiant military heritage are unsubstantiated. He should have something to back that he is the descendent of veterans of the American Revolution (fighting the British), the Civil War, and two awardees of the British Victoria Cross. There are two Irishman named Lucas who were awarded it but, both lived from the 1850's to the early 1900's in Ireland.
   It does seem that he writes the book as if he is the only Marine on Iwo Jima. There is little mention of the names of the Marines that he served with and his interactions with them. Every Marine has a history. You will receive the impression that he wasn't very well liked by his peers and was insubordinate to superiors. I believe that commanding officer that let him stay on the ship after deserting his unit in Hawaii had no choice but to attach him to a battalion and send him into the fight. It would have been an even bigger hassle to send him back to Hawaii. That unit was going to war and they were not going to think twice about giving that kid a rifle and putting him on that beach.
   His time in the brig and driving a trash truck leaves the reader to question: "Was he up to high standards of being a Marine that he says he was?" The sentence he received from a court marshal (yes, I said court marshal) seemed too hefty for just roughing up a guy. The recount of his first sexual experience just after he tells the story of shoving a broom handle into the "offending orifice" of a mule, named after a girl he was afraid to talk to, should have been left out. This book should have been written by a non-bias author that is willing to do some research. His reason for joining the Army almost sounds like an excuse. He submits to the reader that it was his undying desire and primary mission in life to be a Marine and kill the Japanese.