this book really goes into depth the causes of the conflict in chechnya and other mulim republics and why and how russia has failed to quell their aspirations for breaking away from what the inhabitants term as "tsar regime".

a must read for someone who is interested in the history of the conflict in the caucasus especially chechnya.

Perhaps because the book was written so shortly following the war, thus being incapable of a full and true account, or perhaps because of simple bias, this book has so many flaws as to be impossible to articulate in this short space. Nevertheless, I will try.

1. It is a poorly written historical account. The thrust of Mr. O'Ballance's thesis, it would appear, comes down to a matter of "he said-she said" taken to the Nth degree (if anyone reading this has read the book, you know exactly what I mean). Nearly every sentence is constructed thusly: "The Israelis claim....but an Egyptian colonel told me....". The book drones on like this forever. Any historian worth his salt would have at least made an effort to reconcile any differences. And Mr. O'Ballance consistently gives greater credence to the pronouncements made by dictatorial Arab regimes rather than to the democratic Israel.

2. There is a clear, irrefutable anti-Israel bias here. The Israelis are frequently referenced as "arrogant" and willing to lash out at "any Arab country that gets out of line", forgetting, it would seem, that Arab countries have been trying to destroy Israel since May 14, 1948, and have always been the aggressors in each Arab-Israeli war. In addition, any Israeli success in the war is ascribed to "luck", or to ineptitude somehow beyond the control of the Arabs. Contrariwise, Arab successes are treated as heroic stands of bravery in the face of superior Israeli weaponry (American-supplied, he never fails to remind us. We hear the U.S.S.R. was ferrying thousands of tons of tanks and ammunition to the Arabs, but it's hardly consequential in Mr. O'Ballance's view).

3. Mr. O'Ballance has the audacity to claim, in the book's first pages, that Anwar Sadat was "elected"! An absurd statement at any time, to be sure, but to continue by referring to both him and the blood-soaked, murderous dictator Assad of Syria as "President Sadat" and "President Assad" is beyond the acceptable norms of Western historical discourse and research.

I'm sorry to disappoint, but if you're looking for an honest account of the Yom Kippur War, as well as a good read, this is NOT the book to get. You'll simply develop a headache.

Mr. O'Balance did an impressive effort documenting this war. The majority of the books written about this subject are either biased or full of fiction. In his methodology writing this book, Mr. O'Balance follows an objective, yet balanced technique to present an honest and fair historic accounts of this war as we lived it 30 years ago. The fast pace and the in-depth handling of all the subjects contained in this book makes it an excellent reference for any military thinker about how to progress in terms of weapon system technologies, strategic planning, and modern-day warfare.
In short, well done Mr. O'Balance!!!!!!!

After some hesitation and mainly perplexed by some reviewer's intentions I didn't by the book. Then, feeling left out from one of the most important events in the world in the 20th century, I decided to check out the book from public library. To my surprise, Mr. O'ballance, as military writer, proved to be the only man with the 'right story' as we all lived it hour by hour at that time. After 30 years, nothing he told in the book was proved to be otherwise.
Mr. O'ballance has kept it true, honest, and professional yet exciting and fast paced. Had he influenced any event or narration other than just quoting the war's participants themselves, he could have declassified his work as " history", to become may be "fiction". Based on what he set himself to do, from the military stand point, he excelled.
But a war any war, isn't simply about military action alone! In fact, a war is always caused by something and is set out to achieve something! . And no matter what! If the cause is not justifiable and the achievement is not been reached, yes there is NO VICTOR and NO VANQUISHED. But that was not the case in 1973, bridging between the first a few pages in the book and the last few ones. Along, with simple analysis of the war at that time, one could easily say that Mr. O'ballance's work is not complete, as it covers only a narrow aspect of the war, the Military action. Adding together the political, economical and international outcome of the war, along with military one. One could see that, on the personal level or national level, there was YES VICTOR, and YES VANQUISHED!.

Edgar O'Ballance gives an even-handed account of the tragic history of the Congo from its independence to 1998. Talk about a country that never got a break - from Belgian colonizers, cold-war intrigues, tribal rivalries, mercenaries and despots. As a journalist who has covered the country since 1960 and has interviewed a number of the major power-brokers, O'Ballance leads the reader through the timeline in detail and depth - though maybe more than a newcomer to the subject can initially grasp. This is an especially timely piece for anyone who wants to understand not only the complexities of the current war in the Congo, but also the troubles in neighboring countries, Rwanda and Burundi.

It is a shame this book is out of print. If you want to learn how to conduct a war this book has to be one of the basic texts.

O'Ballance clearly and factually analyses the socio-political run-up to the war without getting bogged down in splitting hairs.

He then moves to an explanation of the war. He does this theatre by theatre, beginning with the Air war, followed by the Sinai campaign, then the war against Jordan, the Syrian campaign in the Golan heights and finally the naval actions.

In each section he establishes the strenghts of the players with detailed descriptions of the numbers and types of materiel (Aircraft, Tanks, Artillery, etc).

He analyses the types of troops available to each side, the qualities of the officers, the "management" style, the troop morale.

Then he illustrates the actions, using detailed maps to aid commentary, analysing as the actions progress what was going right or wrong.

Finally he summarises each action and its impact on the other elements of the war.

The Six-Day war is a lesson in the need for domination of the skies in desert warfare. Without total air superiority it is certain that the deep egyptian lines of defence in the Sinai would have held. This would have given the Jordanians, Syrians and Iraqis time to mobilise against Israel.

The Israeli strategy to fight the war outside of Israel is an important lesson for small nations.

The independence of Israeli units and in particular the ability of tank commanders to act when isolated, was a key to success in the confusion of battle. Israelis trusted their junior officers to act to fulfill an overall general plan. The Egyptians on the other hand, were constantly looking for direction from above, which was useless given the speed with which circumstances changed. This is an important lesson not only for military, but also for management.

Overall an excellent historical read, and a brilliant lesson in tactics, strategy and delegation.

"The Kurdish Struggle" on the Basis of Metaphoric Knowledge, Revisionism and History

The book is a detailed history of the Kurds from the nineteenth century to the present day. It includes the interplay of old and new aspects of the struggle, the importance of local rivalries within Kurdish society, the enduring authority of certain forms of leadership, and failure of modern states to respond to the challenge of Kurdish nationalism.

It is an analysis of the Kurdish peoples' historical struggles to attain political recognition in Turkey, Iraq, Iran, the Soviet Union, and Syria. O'Ballance, a journalist, describes how after the Kurdish Republic's one year of existence, the redrawn national boundaries after World War II forced the Kurds into conflict with the countries trying to assimilate them. The numerous insurrections and repressions from that time to the present are documented in the volume, along with profiles of the major figures in the dissident movements in each country. To him, Kurds wasted time generously and now it is time to act. In the same way, an act from the Kurds in this area must be waited for.

Edgar O' Balance writes a short history of the Kurds and shows the background of Kurdish problem that is popularized in the Western public opinion especially after the Gulf War. By claiming that what will be in the Middle East in the near future is partly depend on what will happen to Kurds he aims at showing where those people were until this time, and why they were a problem in the current Middle East. Who are the Kurds, what do they want, and why have they been unable to obtain it? The book gives some insight into their background, the milestones in their continuing struggle for a political goal, and something of their many misfortunes.

He says that Kurds are an ancient race, which exist in the Kurdistan since the very early periods. O' Balance in the book takes Kurds from 7th century and emphasizes their long quarrels with Armenians at the time. Later he mentions about Selahaddin Ayyubi, who is a Kurd fought against Crusades. Then He explains the roles that Kurds played in Seljukids, Ottoman Empire, and eventually Turkey. His prospects go to Cold War, and current politics.

After all these, the book is full of unprocessed information. He gives dates and events whose only related things are of Kurdish struggle. The theme he held is so wide that he could not achieve to put them together. Despite the fact that the Kurds and their positions in the Middle East changed in time, he writes in chronological order by chosen dates with a revisionist approach. Within this huge prospect, he strives to prove that Kurds, from the very early periods in their history, were the victims of their bad luck. They worked hard, they fought, they did their best but they could not gain the core: they could not found a state. The book's main topic is the Kurdish Struggle. The common point of all these historical data is that they are some how related with a struggle that was held by Kurds.

When writing about the Kurdish history, he romanticizes the situations of Kurds. Here, I think something must be made clear. We see migrations and wars, dynasties toppled, governments overthrown, economic systems made affluent or poor; revolutions in power, privilege and wealth: We see human beings born, mating, child-rearing, working, worshipping, playing, educating, writing, philosophizing, governing. We see men's creative energies now turned to peace, now to war, now to business. People were born, they fight, they live in camps, they lost their relatives. We see all these and much more. On the other hand, we don't see them in a prepared manner that can be used in a textual context. Out of huge life-cycle, all those petty events gain some other meanings, some other titles. They are literal in meaning, they are empirical too. But within a phenomenon all these are metaphoric.

Metaphoric knowledge is the very opposite of the type of knowledge that comes us through mere additive experience, through, deductive or inductive, of meanings already contained in a theory, through either analysis or synthesis. It is already there, but the meaning we gave it is certainly related with some other things in our live. To begin with lives of simple people, civilians, you can talk about a struggle. But by talking about the conflicts between leaders, political quarrels, it is so hard to call it a struggle of a group of people. This leads completely a misunderstanding. With the vocabulary of nation state, it is so hard to look at a so wide background of Kurds in that area. O'Ballance mentions about different Kurdish groups, different places and summon all of them on the point that all these are eventually a Kurdish Struggle. On the other hand, revisionism in its nature depend on completing the missing parts of an imagined whole. It seems to me the book became a victim of the part of the false metaphoric European public opinion. Beside, it helps the ideas of Kurdish nationalist's "imagined community" project. As we all know the only legitimacy for the violence in today's public opinion is liberation movements.

I could not find so further information about the author. He is a journalist as was indicated in the presentation of book. In the firs two pages his books are shown. They cover a very wide range. The only common point among them, it seems to me, is the terror, and guerilla movements. On the other hand he claims that he visits the camps, "having spent days and weeks at a time over the years with Kurds in their mountains and towns, at war, in victory and defeat and in exile". I encounter some very few and useless notes in the book about this visits. I can confidently say that book certainly does not include anything about those visits.

When we look at the book on ethical basis, I have some problems with his understanding of ethics. He uses 10 books about Kurdish history but there are very little references within the book as it was about the travel accounts. In the Bibliography part at the end of the book he gives names of newspapers from UK, USA, France, Turkey, Iran, and Iraq but, again-strangely-he does not refer any newspapers except of UK and US. For example, there are no references for Arab newspapers whereas he uses only the English newspapers.

I think his attitude is clear in the acknowledgements. He says " all comments, deductions and opinions are my own, and at times these may differ current, generally perceived wisdom." By doing that he writes a book most of which includes historical claims and data. If this is a history book, where are the references? He does not stop here, he even comments on Turkish economy. What I want to say is that he touches every subject and he leaves all uncompleted. He does not go far beyond the seeming picture.

For the future, he also gives some prospects (this part cover 3-4 pages in the 256-pages book). To him, any independent Kurdish state seems impossible for now because of the attitudes of related states towards Kurdish problem. The only possibility seems, to him, "Kurdish Diaspora, which is increasing due to both political and economic reasons, especially in Western countries, will keep the Kurdish culture alive and the Kurdish ethnic flag flying abroad for a generation or two, generally finding tolerance. " In future, they may get more support and found a quasi-Jewish state that is the utopia, at least, for now. On the other hand, as long as adjacent countries continue to give sanctuary to PKK activists the Kurdish insurrection in Turkey will remain almost unquenchable. "Like the Kurds, Turkey has no real friends. " he says.

For the people who wants to have a sort encyclopedic idea about Kurds, the book useful but for further expectations book does not go beyond becoming a chronological guide. Despite the fact that O' Balance did not touch this, book includes three maps about traditional Kurdistan and the current demands of Kurds.

To conclude, book is a well-read, easy-consumed one. This cheap hold of events proves its fail about the prospects on the Middle East even today. Despite all these, it can be read to have a general idea about Kurds and to see how a book depends on unsupported different assumptions.

O'Ballance's book reads like a very long newspaper account. Heavy on "who" "what" and "when", this text never offers the reader any explanation of "why" anything has happened in the Sudan. The civil war in the Sudan is a result of a number of forces, not the least of which are colonial rule, economic strains, and ethnic and religious tensions. O'Ballance's book does justice to none of these factors. Historians often get annoyed with journalists because they don't take history into account. This book is a prime example of that failing.