I have read many commentaries and Barclay and John MacArthur are the best in my opinion. Barclay is the easiest to read. He aims at the people to which it is written, the culture in which it is written and the language at the time. Barclay is the most quoted in terms of history. Very, very interesting reading.

There's no better reason to own this book than the fact that it contains William Broyles' essential essay, "Why Men Love War." That the editors, Francesca M. Cancian and James William Gibson were astute enough to include Broyles, speaks well for the rest of their selections.

Gibson's thesis is that we could never have won the war because we tried to see the Vietnamese on our terms instead of theirs. The Vietnam War was what he refers to as a "Technowar" -- since strength in the Western world has its basis in technology, we often have a tendancy to assume that is the same everywhere. This is what we did with our enemies in Vietnam -- we could not recognize their strengths because they were not like us. Because we had a stronger technological base, we thought there was no way we could lose the war, and ironically this way of thinking was a great contributer to our failures in Vietnam.

This book is a natural page-turner which delves into the rise of a new "warrior cult" in the U.S. beginning in the mid-70's and gaining momentum in the 80's. Explores the (sometimes dangerous) sociological implications of this fascination with automatic weapons, camouflage clothing, violence, and the "lone warrior", although the author's reliance on Jungian and Freudian interpretations of this phenomenon goes a bit overboard at times. Nonetheless this is a valuable study overall. The assertion that this phenomenon is fulfilling a valid psychological need in its adherents, and suggestions of alternate ways of fulfilling these needs that do not glorify violence, should prove to be provocative and hopefully useful in working toward a less violent society.

This is probably one of the best primer books for anyone interested in the sociological aspects of masculinity in America. It is an easy read with tons of examples from relatively recent media sources. It reads like a novel but has a lot more to say. Any one interested in violence in media should put this at the top of their to read list.

This book was recommended to me in a politics chat room. When my friend described its topic with "paintball" "guns" "war movies" and "politics", I knew I had to read it (i had an interest in all of these things).

The book starts off describing how "New Warriors" (men with a "warrior" mentality in Post-Vietnam America) see and treat women/children/family, how they are effected by consumer culture of war/paramiltary books and movies, view guns.. paintball.

Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, along with Ollie North, Rambo, Charles Bronson, Chuck Norris all embrace or help create the New War. Mass murderers, assassins, and mercenaries are influenced by it as well.

I'd like to see Gibson tackle the topic again. 5 years later, we've got an enormous computer/video game warrior culture, where hundreds of thousands of young men spend hours each day blasting each other to bits on the Internet.

This is a classic work explaining in a remarkably objective manner the many varieties and possibilities of religious experience. It well avoids the common trap of falling into a polemic either for or against religion; nor does it become a tract supporting Protestantism over Catholicism or vice-verse; or even Christianity over Islam or vice-versa. The book is extremely well-reasoned and liberally dosed with examples of the extremes of religiousity. These extremes not only make for entertaining reading, but James argues that we can learn more from the people who have felt the religious impulse strongly than we can from those who neatly fit religion into their otherwise secular lives. An over-weaning theme of the book is James's respect for the individual's experience of religion. As a result, this is not a book about the varieties of religions, as it does not compare Protestantism and Christianity; nor Judaism and Buddhism, or any other forms of established religion. In fact, in his chapter about mysticism, he argues that the established religions customarily treat mystics and mysticisms as heretics and heresy. Mysticism then either succumbs or successfully survives to either break off to become its own established religion or becomes absorbed into an established religion. By the time that has happened the individual aspects of mysticism are lost and are replaced by still further dogma.

This book should really have been titled "The Varieties of Christian Religious Experience," for it is only for Christianity (and to some extent Judaism) that James is well-versed enough to give a thorough examination. It is not that he does not respect Islam or Buddhism; it is that he doesn't know them well enough to draw them fully into the discussion.

This book is based on a series of Lectures that the late William James gave at the turn of the century. What makes James' writing so odd in the world of religious studies is his refreshingly realistic take on religion and human nature considering it was written previous to the first world war. In an age where people were remarkably positive about human kind and our collective destiny James' views were certainly unpopular. James, however, was ahead of his time. We look back on his work from a century later through the lens of the most bloody and brutal century mankind can remember and find James' assertions to be entirely too accurate.

This was one of the first academic books on the subject of religious experience and is thus extremely important. William James demonstrates such a wide scope of knowledge on the subject that reading this book is like opening a window into the world of nineteenth century religious movements. Considering the amount of important developements that occured within religion at the time: The Quakers, The abolishionists, Mormons, etc. This book can be extremely useful in that aspect as well.
It is certainly worth reading if you have an interest in

religious experience or in nineteenth century religion. James is and most likely will always be one of the greatest voices on this subject, thus, not to read this book would not be a sin, but it would definitely be a mistake.

Coming from an essentially secular upbringing, I thought religion was something I should learn about as part of a well-rounded liberal arts education. This book helped me to see that religion might also have something to say to me personally (as did Thomas Merton's "Seven Storey Mountain").

"Varieties" is a wonderfully written exploration of the psychology of individual religious experience--whether within or without organized religion--by one of America's greatest philosophers and psychologists. It includes lots of interesting case studies and lots of insight. Major topics: conversion, saintliness, mysticism, and James's illuminating distinction between "healthy-minded" religion and that of the "sick soul." Fun fact: the panicky, melancholic "Frenchman" near the end of the "Sick Soul" section is actually William James. Also noteworthy: this book was an important influence on "Bill W.," co-founder of Alcoholics Anonymous.

(Another book I highly recommend on the psychology of religion: Gerald May's "Will and Spirit: A Contemplative Psychology.")

J.W. Gibson's book has a misleading title; I sought it as a source of the technical aspects of the war in Vietnam, and instead found a polemic. His adulation for Ho Chi Minh and even faint praise for Joseph Stalin give away his bias--the book is clearly an anti-capitalist diatribe, although I certainly recognize the validity of some of his criticism. Having been an Army officer in the conflict (199th Infantry Brigade) I experienced first-hand the problems with morale and a frustrating conflict in which we consistently ceded the offensive to the enemy. But I must take exception to his perpetuation of the myth that we used our soldiers as "bait". He and Stanley Karnow, neither of whom fought in the war, agree that the typical American tactic was to blunder through the jungle until we found the enemy the hard way--by being ambushed. The fact is, rougly 90% of all ambushes (the most common type of combat in an unconventional war) in Vietnam were initiated by American or allied forces.

The concept of limited war is one that the author never seems to grasp. He even manages to write an entire book on it without mentioning George F. Kennan, the architect of this war-without-victory concept. The publishing date of 1986 is telling, as the author's pronouncement that the U.S. military has not learned from its past mistakes in Vietnam would shortly be proved wrong in Kuwait. In his subsequent update, he cites Saddam Hussein's continued tyranny after 1991 as proof of failure, as though this was a military blunder rather than a political decision.

Gibson's obvious affection for "wars of national liberation" carry over to his conclusion in which he seems to employ a fairness doctrine to war. If the other side is not our technological equal, we should not use our superiority to reduce our casualties and shorten the conflict. War is always a catalyst for invention and innovation, and the side that does a better job typically prevails. This did not happen in Vietnam because our electorate grew disillusioned after 14 years of war, and because we have elections every two years that resulted in a government that eventually cut the funding--and it is not possible to wage war without money. The other side did not have elections, but they did have tyrants in charge who were quite willing to expend ten or twenty of their young men for every American KIA. In the end, the war of containment became a war of attrition. This is another concept that seems not to have occurred to Mr. Gibson.

It requires little imagination to describe U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War as both misguided and mismanaged. As the politicians who got America bogged down in someone else's civil war have much to answer for, so too do those senior military officers who ran the war; the scorched-earth, search-and-destroy strategy that MACV opted for was not only wrongheaded, unworkable, and doomed to fail, it was also immoral.All this James Gibson tells us in THE PERFECT WAR. The problem is that he adds more heat than light to the discussion so overt are his biases against the U.S. military and in favor of the National Liberation Front. The same ground is covered much more intelligently in Neil Sheehan's A BRIGHT SHINING LIE. Gibson takes the officer corps to task for the poor quality of leadership displayed during the war by the many field-grade and general officers who "led" their units from a helicopter seat and who displayed more concern over their efficiency reports than their troops. Fair enough. It is true that there was not an overabundance of heroic leadership at the battalion, brigade, and division level in Vietnam. It is also true, as Gibson argues, that the war produced a lot of senior officers who should be embarrassed to wear the Silver Stars and Distinguished Flying Crosses they were awarded.Still, for all the helicopter-seat heroes in the war, there were still plenty of field-grade officers who led on the ground, with their troops, in the style of the battalion and regimental commanders of WWII. Gibson should have given these men their due. He does not. A much more incisive, well-rounded discussion of the quality of combat leadership in Vietnam is to be found in ABOUT FACE by David Hackworth.Gibson's sources are a major problem. He does not appear to have done a lot of original research, but rather quotes from previously-published books and magazine articles. Worse, he relies heavily on three books (NAM by Mark Baker, CONVERSATIONS WITH AMERICANS by Mark Lane, and SPOILS OF WAR by Charles Levy) which, once published, were thoroughly discredited by journalists, historians, and veterans who pointed out the fabrications, distortions, and exaggerated accounts contained in them. It is distressing to see the bogus accounts from these three books repeatedly popping up in THE PERFECT WAR. Gibson seemed prepared to believe the worst about everyone who served in Vietnam, from private to general. The US Army, as described in THE PERFECT WAR, seemed to do nothing but smoke dope, kill civilians, frag its officers, and lose battles.The communists, on the other hand, are idealized in THE PERFECT WAR for their patriotism, determination, and bravery. The Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army had an abundance of all three virtures. It was, in fact, their patriotism, determination, and bravery which won the war, not (as the right-wing in this country would have it) the machinations of a treasonous press, a cowardly congress, and anti-war protesters. For all that, though, the communists were capable of great cruelty in fighting their war, from the murder of government officials and their families, the massacre in Hue (which Gibson downplays), to the systematic abuse and torture of American POWs in places like the Hanoi Hilton. Gibson seems unable to come to terms with the dark side of the communist war effort.

This book looks at the Vietnam War in a perspective that can be deeply appreciated by someone who had a four year involvement in it. I couldn't put the book down. Having spent two tours
in-country, being non-military, but supporting the US Army, in both combat and non-combat situations, this book cleared up a lot of "why in the world is this or that happening"? Also, there were several situations that Gibson mentioned that I was a participant in and his writing gives me the notion that he does have some idea of what he speaks.

I do not believe he was leaning to the communist efforts, this writing was about our side. I also know that everyone there was not a dope smoking idiot, but the way MANAGEMENT handled most situations, made a sane person wonder what in the heck were THEY thinking and whos side were THEY on? I have never seen such waste of assets and personnel!

I believe everyone who was there would have a better understanding of all of the goofyness that went on, and there was plenty of it, if they would read this book.