I like making reading lists. Actually, I don’t like it, I love it. Name the occasion and I’ll make the party-mix. How much do I love making reading lists? As much as these guys like making music top 5′s.
So I was pretty excited to see General James Mattis’s reading list posted on Small Wars Journal. I met the man a few years ago at the RUSI Land Warfare conference and was very impressed. It’s easy enough to be impressed by a Marine general in full dress uniform but I found him particularly enthralling. I invited him to come join the War Studies Department after he retired and we spoke for a few minutes about books. It was rapidly very apparent that this guy knows his books. I had a fleeting ‘I’m not worthy’ moment when he graciously and diplomatically said that he could think of nothing better than spending a year or two at King’s as a scholar. Which makes me wonder about how much he really had to do with this list because, well, it’s pretty mixed. There are, in my opinion, some absolute must reads in there alongside, frankly, a fair bit of blah. Anyway, my point is not to dissect the list–have at it in the comments here or at SWJ, if you wish.
A few years ago a more senior colleague was explaining to me his philosophy when putting together a course reading list. His were minimal. Basically a handful of books, his theory being that students got far more out of reading, really reading, just one excellent book than they did out of reading a dozen mediocre ones. He taught international relations so his students really read Hedley Bull’s The Anarchical Society. Now here’s my suggestion for CENTCOM. The static reading list feels kind of stale; what I think would be absolutely fascinating, what I would pay money for, would be to hear General Mattis talk about his top 5, or even his top 1 in the categories already on the list. Half an hour to an hour of his time then put it out as a podcast. What does he think people think should read and why. What did he get out of reading it? What does he hope that they would get out of it? That would be pretty illuminating and it would probably also tell people a lot about commander’s intent. (General Mattis, we’d love to have you here at King’s War Studies! Stop by when you are next in London. I also know where all the best pubs are to be found).
Anyway, for what it’s worth here’s my Top 5.
- On War by Clause… Naaa, too easy! It’s not that kind of list. My first choice is C.S. Forester’s Rifleman Dodd and I choose it for three reasons. A/ it’s under 150 pages and a ripping read that any private who can manage Penthouse Forum can get through in a weekend. B/ the Rifleman in question is one of Wellington’s troops who gets stuck on the wrong side of enemy lines hanging with the Spanish insurgents fighting against Napoleon during the Peninsular Campaign–a useful insurgent perspective. And C/ I think that Dodd exhibits what I reckon is one of the supreme soldierly qualities–equanimity, the quality of being even-tempered and calm despite crisis. Unfortunately, the latter is at the moment even more vital than usual because the chances are good that this war is not going to end well.
- For reasons stated on KOW earlier, John Mackinlay’s The Insurgent Archipelago.
- Either Manuel Castells, Information Age trilogy or just his Communication Power. Insurgency is the quintessential bottom-up form of warfare; it naturally reflects the society from which it emerges. If you want to understand insurgency in the Information Age then you need to start by understanding the precepts of the Information Society in which it operates and upon which it preys. This is hard. So far, Castells is your best guide.
- Quintan Wiktorowicz, Islamic Activism: A Social Movement Theory Approach. Not all social movements are insurgencies but all insurgencies are social movements. Your enemy is not so much Al Qaeda, or the Taliban, as it is the mood of sullen resentment that animates the peoples who these groups purport to represent. Understand that mood. Learn about ‘social capital’ and what makes messages resonant; study how successful social movements work, it’s not all that different from successful insurgencies.
- Clifford Bob, The Marketing of Rebellion: Insurgents, Media and International Activism. Of all the books I’ve read in the last year this is the one that I found the most consistently thought provoking. ‘How do a few Third World political movements become global causes célèbres, while most remain isolated?’ The Taliban is not one of the case studies in the book (if you’re looking for a PhD topic, hint, hint) but it well could be. A very mature, balanced and non-hystrionic analysis of the insurgent-media-NGO nexus, particularly notable for dealing with NGOs which are normally forgotten about. I have to say that Bob’s book has helped me more than any other to understand why groups like Amnesty International, at least the UK branch, have cozied up with Islamists and people like that creepy egotistical prat Julian Assange of Wikileaks act the way that they do.
I could go on but I won’t. Make your own list! We can have a mature debate about in comments. Like these guys:
{ 27 comments… read them below or add one }
All that Ahmed Rashid and Bernard Lewis in Mattis’ reading list makes my heart ache a little bit.
I find it interesting that there is (at least to me) both a hint of surprise that someone “like” General Mattis reads anything at all beyond message traffic (I suppose my Corps is a bit too successful at the “Conan” warrior imagery) and another hint of what I have come to expect on this and other similar blogs (after all that is one reason they exist) of disapproving judg(e)ment as to “what” he reads (“… a fair bit of blah”). This is echoed as if on cue by Juha S.
Notwithstanding your kind offer to the good General to join you and other luminaries at Kings (and I mean that sincerely), I think we would all do well to keep in mind as we parse their reading lists like they are those of aspiring graduate students that these officers have also been “out and about” a bit more than most of us doing other “big” things in addition to curling up with a riveting read like Svechin’s “Strategy. “
CJr, I’m afraid I don’t understand what you’re on about. You’re really reading into this some condescencion toward the General? That’s absurd. I specifically pointed out Mattis’s reputation as a scholar, something I was pleased to observe in person and have heard talked about by people who have worked with him many times. It is a quality which I admire, particularly as his day job is a pretty busy one. Also, I don’t know what you’re talking about with this ‘Conan image’ thing. Nobody who has followed American defence policy over the last, say, 20 years will have missed that the service which has thought the most deeply and innovatively about the messy wars of the ‘post-Cold War’ is the USMC. 3 Block, Hybrid, Distributed Ops and much of FM3-24 for that matter–Marine ideas. I think you are being oversensitive.
Moreover the point I was making about the staleness of this reading list is that give what I know of Mattis’s library and in view of his enormous experience its composition is strange. And finally if the people at whom this list is aimed are extremely busy doesn’t that make it all the more important that they be directed to the absolute best things to read and given some context and guidance as to why, in the opinion of their commander, it is this bok particularly that they should read?
I regret you feel my impression is as you put it “absurd.” After all, it is but an impression. I mentioned it not to be critical of you or anyone else individually but more in the spirit of a caring “wingman” pointing out that there may be the slightest bit of oil streaming along the underbelly of our collective fuselage (sorry for the stretched metaphor). I find that in all professions, those within them naturally can become a bit insular in their perspectives and especially in their particular frames of reference that they apply in evaluating themselves and, more important to my point, others outside their cloister.
I know in my own case, this can be very subtle since we are each often immersed in our respective professional contexts for much of our waking lives and it occurs in spite of our conscious efforts to avoid it. This can be seen in many ways–our lexicon, analytical approach (compare for example that of a lawyer to an engineer in the way they each come at the same issue), our “badges of hono(u)r” etc. That this can occur in spite of our best efforts to watch for it, is why I am fond of the wingman analogy where even the most daring, brilliant, experienced, revered, etc. young (?) man/woman in his/her flying machine can have the proverbial blind spot that all their prowess cannot detect.
There is a thread of this (again perhaps only in my jaundiced eye) in the other discussions on this blog regarding the pros/cons of academics vs. operators being involved in developing strategy etc. or teaching at war colleges etc. My ONLY point in mentioning it was from my perspective as a former operator and academic dilettante as a gentle and sincere reminder of this natural phenomenon since it can be counter-productive to to very positive things that are being sought in the first instance.
If you took my comments as a personal or professional attack I sincerely apologiz(s)e as it was not my intent.
OK CJr, fair enough. Yours is a reasonable injunction offered in the spirit of better communication and mutual learning. Message received and understood. Best wishes, David Betz
I thought it was strange that FM 3-24 was recommended reading at the colonel/general level and not at, say, the company-level.
1. On War – Carl von Clausewitz
2. Clausewitz and the State – Peter Paret
3. Carl von Clausewitz’s ‘On war’ – Hew Strachan
4. Clausewitz: A Very Short Introduction – Michael Howard
5. Reading Clausewitz – Beatrice Heuser
A chap can never have too much Clausewitz, I find.
Proving the point I suppose that “everything in reading about war is very simple. But the simplest thing is difficult.” ;-)
1. Double Lives by Stephen Koch. The best book available on propaganda, looking at the Willi Munzenberg’s third party communist campaigns of the 20s and 30s.
2. Certain to Win by Chet Richards. Focuses on John Boyd applied to business but still a brilliant overview of effective strategy and decision-making.
3. The Sling and the Stone by Thomas X Hammes. Looks at the effective use of 4GW from Mao onwards.
4. Patterns of Conflict. John Boyd’s masterpiece presentation.
5. The Gamble by Thomas Ricks. Big malfunctioning bureaucracies hardly ever get turned round, even in a crisis. Ricks shows how the Pentagon was.
I noticed you listed Koch’s book. How did you find it compared to “How We Advertised America…” by Creel, “Propaganda” by Bernays, “Spreading Germs of Hate” by Viereck, and/or “Manufacturing Consent …” by Herman and Chomsky?
I think we should say what the reading list is designed to educate in, and who it is aimed at. David’s list is very much aimed at irregular warfare. As more of a generalist introduction and aimed at officer cadets (or aspiring armchair pundits!) I would look at covering the areas of: theory of conflict, realities of conflict, nature of the military, a campaign study, change in the military.
Theory:
Clausewitz ‘On War’. It may be a cliche, but it is fundamental to understanding the nature of war. For those who are not inclined to read all of Clausewitz then Hugh Smith’s ‘On Clausewitz’.
Realities of Conflict:
Hugh McManners ‘Scars of War’ or John Keegan’s ‘The Face Of Battle’. Warfare is intrinsically human. These highlight most of the issues and go a great deal towards explaining how Clausewitzian ‘friction’ happens.
Nature of the Military:
Alan Mallinson’s ‘The Making Of The British Army’ or Robert Kaplan’s ‘Imperial Grunts’. Both of these paint good pictures of the military, Mallinson’s over time to present, Kaplan’s the modern US.
Campaign Study/History:
Slim’s ‘Defeat Into Victory’. You need to study a campaign to be able to put everything into context. Slim’s ‘Defeat Into Victory’ blends all levels of war with the realities of command, the moral component, logistic issues and transforming while in contact. It is also very well written. For a shorter more contemporary account then Bing West’s ‘The Strongest Tribe’.
Change in the Military:
Martin Samuel’s ‘Command or Control’ or Gudmundsson’s ‘Stormtroop Tactics’. I think all military education should look at change and mistakes. Focusing on change both the title look at change and innovation in WW1. Equally good and very well written is Andrew Gordon’s ‘The Rules of the Game’, although this deals with Navy transformation (or lack of) in the run up to WW1.
“The Universal Baseball Association, Inc., J. Henry Waugh, Prop.” by Robert Coover (1968)
I endorse the recommendation of “Defeat Into Victory”. It’s a tremendous read. Between the wars Slim dabbled in short story writing and I can remember once owning a collection of his stuff but no sign of any such thing on Amazon just now.
I would agree with Juha S. that Mattis’s reading list is a tad heavy on Bernard Lewis’s polemics. Lewis was a decent scholar of Islam in his day, but his later work smack of Western triumphalism. What are Mattis’s reasons for assigning titles that more-or-less denigrate Islam? What criteria is he using? A scholarly search for truth and understanding or ideological indoctrination? For a better take Islamic history see some of the work by Marshall G.S. Hodgson, Fred M. Donner, and Patricia Crone.
Gasp-the horror: “smack of Western triumphalism.”
I look forward to your objective definition of the difference you suggest here: “A scholarly search for truth and understanding or ideological indoctrination?”
I was away from my computer with my previous reply and I thought your thoughtful explanation deserved a bit more from me. In the context of my initial reply to you, I suggest the following may also amplify my point:
1. This presentation by Edmund Burke III on Hodgson offers a good deal of biographical material on Hodgson that I believe supports my thesis regarding the effects of perspective and bias on anyone’s work in the social sciences at least, no matter how “objective” they intend it to be:
http://www.escholarship dot org/uc/item/8hg7g677?display=all#page-3
2. While I think Bonner is perhaps a bit more “balanced” (again a function of not only my reading about him but my perspective and bias), his review of Ibn Warraq’s “The Quest for the Historical Muhammad” in which he himself conceded “The study of Islam’s origins [and I would argue many other aspects of Islam, especially relating to contemporary issues such as Islamic-related terrorism etc.] , including the life of Muhammad, is a notoriously contentious undertaking. Scholars with admirable training differ sharply among themselves on how to understand it.” again underscores just how subjective such things really are: http://www.bismikaallahuma dot org/archives/2005/book-review-of-ibn-warraqs-the-quest-for-the-historical-muhammad-ny-2000/
3. As for Patricia Crone, she may well be the poster child along with her colleague, Michael Cook, for the phenomena to which I have alluded. While these eminent scholars (at least so some–yet another indicator of my point) felt strongly enough about their research and resulting analysis to publish a book “Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World,” it is interesting and to me still inexplicable, notwithstanding their stated reasons, why they subsequently recanted it, other than to placate the firestorm caused by the book among Muslims such as represented here: http://www.bismikaallahuma dot org/archives/2007/hagarism-the-story-of-a-book-written-by-infidels-for-infidels/
All of this demonstrates to me at least that while all of these scholars are worthy of study, to say that they are somehow “better” than those someone else may be considering at a particular point in time and for reasons and with perspectives that may vary from those that we may have for such study, is, as I said earlier, of little practical value other than perhaps reflecting the perspectives and biases of the person making the value judgment.
My point in making my observation is not to criticize anyone for having a view about what someone else is reading but rather to remind us all that even when we think we are being objective in such evaluations, we really are not. At best, we are asserting at some level our perception of our own view or perhaps that of a consensus about a given scholar or book that itself is never universal or absolute
N.B. I had to replace the “dot” in the hyperlinks with the word “dot” to get past the spam filter.
I believe there’s a lot of value in the idea of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view: it would be straightforward enough to identify what is agreed, and what is not agreed, and what is each party’s view on the disagreed points.
Without appearing too pedantic, even Wikipedia itself acknowledges that it has problems with bias:
http://en.wikipedia [dot] org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias
(Due to spam filter I had to spell out the “dot”)
I would suggest that eliminating all bias is impossible, for reasons including the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, and the inevitable bias on the part of the audience. However, the NPOV is a very good go at getting to an acceptable minimum of bias.
Indeed. ;-)
Fair enough. Maybe I’m being a bit histrionic. Allow me to elaborate. If a young infantry officer, or student in general, wanted an introduction to Catholicism would you direct them towards authors with a disparaging outlook or those who approach their topic with a healthy dose of love and sympathy for the people, traditions and institution? I think the same can be said for intellectual biographies of powerful thinkers. For example, if one of my students wished to learn about Clausewitz should I first guide him towards John Keegan’s critiques of the man or Peter Paret’s “Clausewitz and the State”? I’d bear this in mind when dealing with minds that are young and infinitely malleable. Does this help to illustrate my critique of Mattis’s Islamic reading list?
Not really but that is ok. As the words you used in your explanation indicate much of this “distinction” rests on emotional rather than objective “factors.” As such it really is pretty much relative to the perspective of each person considering the issue (in this case the pros and cons of one’s reading list regarding Islam). “Perspective” in turn is fraught with variables, some known and some even unknown to the viewer relating to or springing from his or her personal experience, personality, education, theology, politics, profession, etc. etc. that all interact to form certain biases (and if wee are honest I hope we will agree we all have them) that make any “judgment” of any one or group of “us” about someone else’s reading, especially when in a wholly different profession, IMHO of relatively little value.
Reading lists are tricky, especially for uber-geeks who read (and post comments on) strategery websites. I would say that the most important book you can recommend is the one that is going to be read. A 17th century commentary on Hanbalism might be vital to contemporary Islamist thought, but if I give my Colonel a breezy, Bernard Lewis pamphlet, he’ll read it. Or he’ll go back to the Harry Potter novel he thinks I didn’t see on his desk last week.
I wouldn’t read too much into General Mattis’s reading list. He employs a small army of geeks to compile these lists for him. He also doesn’t read all those books in his formitable library. I heard he glares at the books until they tell him what he wants to know.
“Reading lists are tricky, especially for uber-geeks who read (and post comments on) strategery websites.”
Excellent. ;-)
“I heard he glares at the books until they tell him what he wants to know.”
Even better. ;-) ;-)
‘He also doesn’t read all those books in his formitable library. I heard he glares at the books until they tell him what he wants to know.’
Yeah, General Mattis is so tough he doesn’t so much breathe as hold air hostage. When he crosses the street the cars look both ways. He’s the reason Waldo is hiding.
Cue 100 Chuck Norris jokes…
Under his beard he doesn’t have a chin. He has another fist.
For those interested:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/16-Most-Hair-Raising-General-Mattis-Quotes-1573