This is a useful study of an important subject -- how military forces in developed countries are changing as a result of broader social and political change. The book draws on research by academics, professional military and others working as the 'Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society'. US academic Charles Moskos sets out the overall thesis which is that social and political changes since the end of the cold war are fundamentally recasting how military forces recruit and train their people, operate in military contingencies and relate to their national governments. Moskos sets out eleven major areas which the other contributers use as a framework for reviewing specific military forces. Areas include such issues as preceived threats, public attitudes to the military, the dominant type of military profession in a force, the role of women and civilian employees and so on.

This 'eleven-point framework is both a strength and a weakness. While it enables some useful points of comparision between different national forces, it forces the individual country studies into a rigid structure where areas of difference are underplayed and too much attention is afforded to issues that may not be important to individual countries.

Overall, the book succeeds in showing that armed forces are indeed changing into organisations quite different from their cold war predecessors. But many broader (and more important) issues are not addressed: is this trend a good or bad thing? Are forces changing too slowly or too quickly? How should military forces train their leaders to handle these changes? And most important, what impact does this have on the capacities of countries to defend their national interests? While 'The Postmodern Military' usefully sets out the foundations for this important debate, it does not attempt to provide any of the answers to these critical broader questions.

Definitely interesting book. In this book Moskos outlines his paradigm for the postmodern military along the lines of 5 organizational changes and a number of emerging trends for the military. The book is written from a sociological perspective and examines the emergence of these postmodern trends in different militaries around the world. This is definitely an insightful and fascinating book and so is its examination of other nations. Definitely a read for military sociologists and officers alike.

As with all his books, rich imagery. Not as good as "last temptation of Christ" I was stuck by the cruelty that the hero Manolios did to the woman who sacrifice her life for him. He is all politically correct and lukewarm to her. Even when she died he didnot feel slightest trace of sadness but went around saying that he envied her because she is in heaven. If that is what follow Christ lead to I want no part of Christianity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think there is no doubt that in this book the writer tells the story for the whole world not just for Greece.The story happens in a little village that is a sign of the whole world. Kazantzakis tells us a story of a cruel man who just likes to kill people.We can clearly see the scream of the author for liberity.He tells us that living like Jesus has it's own way which is fighting for truth and against the lies.
I think that by reading this book we can not stay silence anymore against the lies in our world.

Kazantzakis masterfully transcribes the many trials and tribulations of a Greek Mountain Village. He definitely digs deep into the contradiction that is religion and life. While many have been turned off by Kazantzakis' realism(commotion raised by "The Last Temptation of Christ" being turned into a movie), it would most certainly be to their advantage to read Kazantzakis for the characters which he creates. To this end Kazantzakis is unparalelled(If you haven't already, score yourself a copy of "Zorba the Greek" to see what I mean. His concentration on the evils that guide men through their actions really makes this novel move. In the end we are left to ask ourselves if these characters, and this mountain village really exist or not. The answer--You tell me.

I belive that the author of this book is blaming society, especially Universities, a little too much. In the beginning when he makes this assertion that Universites are racist he basis it on the astute obervation that since there a few African Americans in the Universities that they are racist or something like that. Furthmore since the Military has more African Americans it is a better instiution. Here is a better explanation. Universities are a lot more selective and thus can choose from the entire population. The Army will take anyone it can get its hands on. I just did not like the Authors atitutde that the whole is racist. Furthermore he knows nothing about music. I love when he writes white soldiers are listening to more black music and he uses Heavy Metal and Rock n Roll, both white music! In fact Heavy Metal is white protest music against Black music! Do some research or think before writting a book.

Charles Moskos and John Butler have delievered in our hands an excellent propoganda treatsie telling us that integration has worked in the Army. It has worked without lowering standards and has provided an environment in which African-Americans can excel. Surely society and other institutions need to take a look at the Army and borrow some of its strategies to provide equal opportunity for African-Americans in the civilian sector.

If you have served in the Army for any length of time you would know that is is not "race" free. Institutional racism was not addressed in this text. Although you have African-Americans in leadership positions in the NCO Corps that changes when we go into the officer's Corps and when we look at positions that African-Americans hold in each branch. Not everything is equal.

The Army is portrayed as a good paternalistic organization which is able to take low performing Blacks and make them into good soldiers. Very little is mentioned at all that many Blacks who have joined the Army have come from stable homes, have a sense of purpose and are instilled with deep family values. These young men and women will be successful in any environment.

Of course there are certain things that outside organizations can learn from the Army and implement the changes in their structures. We must keep in mind that the Army has different control systems in place by virtue of its nature that can't be duplicated in the civilian world. In such a case the Army is able to be successful in integrating its force. The Army's purpose is to defend our country. It can't do it if there is racial strife in the organization. Racists behavior is not in its best interest for defence.

If you create an environment where there is a level playing field then everyone has the opportunity to excel. What the Army has done is not unique as Moskos implies. Civilian society can not be compared with the Army because of its unique mission. The Army doesn't change until society tells it to do so.

Mr. Moskos would have done a better job in presenting the Army as an alternative for African-Americans to explore as they embark on their way to viable careers for their lives. The Army is not racism free and better attention needs to be addressed to the institutional barriers. Purchase this book if you are highly optimistic or have your head buried in the sand regarding integration the Army way.

Perhaps confirming suspicions of most African-Americans, I can attest to the very real resentment that their presence in the ranks engenders. It is true that their representation in the NCO corps is quite heavy, but I have personally observed that the officer corps is equally topheavy with whites. Naturally the officer corps is better educated, if not always smarter. To the average white observer without the benefit of liberal indoctrination,it is quite obvious that the reason for this preponderance of Black NCO's is that the military lifestyle is often infinitely more palatable than the civilian cycle of poverty, drugs, and crime that surely await the average black who is either too witless, or too proud to take advantage of the many programs developed by Whitey to raise him above his circumstances. This is not to say that many African-Americans do not benefit in a true moral sense from the strict meritocracy envisioned and implemented by the military. Quite often they are superior soldiers and human beings when shown the truth and beauty of discipline and self-sacrifice. Unfortunately, there are many more who have never managed to embrace these equalizing truths, and have managed to cling to the ghetto mentality to the detriment of those they presume to command. For this reason you will see most whites leave service after the contracted number of years, and many blacks stay on to fill the NCO ranks.