Washington’s war: From independence to Iraq (By General Sir Michael Rose)

[struggle4progress]

America’s uncivil war

Washington’s war: From independence to Iraq
By General Sir Michael Rose

By Leslie Clark

~snip~ According to General Sir Michael Rose, neither Nash nor the army had learned the military lessons of America's own revolution over 200 years ago. "No more important example exists in history of a small group of determined insurgents defeating a world superpower," writes Rose, "than that of the British defeat in the American war of independence."

His book is "designed to launch a new debate about when and how we should invite our armed forces to engage in the fight for freedom and democracy". He cleverly endears himself to the "coalition of the willing" by choosing for analysis a war that Americans remember fondly and the British can view dispassionately. ~snip~

Rose's comparative analysis is well researched and closely argued. Less convincing, however, is his contention that the British learned the lesson of the American war and applied it to their future conflicts throughout the world up to this day, while the United States did not. ~snip~

As the US grew to be a greater world power, it came to rely on brute force to the exclusion of all other tactics.Debate on alternative methods became almost treasonable. Because conservative American leaders blamed the press and homefront dissent for that nation's defeat in Vietnam, they failed to recognise the real reason the war was lost. The US wanted to fight, win and leave Vietnam. The Vietnamese wanted to fight, win and stay in their homeland as free men. Even if they lacked numbers and arms, the Vietnamese had passion and time on their side. It's a lesson that any number of insurgents, including the Iraqis and the American colonists, have taught historians.

http://www.sundayherald.com/arts/arts/display.var.1411753.0.0.php