Swords for Hire" is a humorous and exciting medieval adventure. Inspired by "The Princess Bride", the style is similar enough that anyone who enjoyed that book should enjoy this one. Although it is written for the juvenile market (age 9 or so and older) it is still a delightful read for anyone. For a younger person the first thirty pages are somewhat slow but required in order to lay the foundation for the rest of the book. On the other hand, once you get to the section on "The Oddball" it picks up speed, the two primary characters become well developed and the book takes off. After that it is hard to put the book down and you may find yourself sitting up to finish it. "Swords for Hire" is a highly recommended and enjoyable read.

Sam Hatcher lived on a farm until he turned sixteen. Then he became an apprentice to Rigby Skeet, Sword For Hire. A smuggled message landed in their hands to reveal that the "deceased king" was not really dead. Instead, King Olive was caged in a far away dungeon and guarded by "the Boneman". The two set out to rescue their true king from the evil guards.

I found this story to be an absolute delight! All through the book I chuckled and often I found myself laughing out loud. The author expressed even the most common things in the most unusual and humorous ways. For example: "Imagine a dark, sinister-looking castle, then multiply by two and you'd have the castle of the Boneman."

The author also added some strange personalities that kids of all ages cannot help but find amusing, such as the false king who enjoyed nothing more than putting worms on top of his head. It is things such as these that will make young readers WANT to read. Each chapter is short, which is recommended for younger readers as well. And of course, there must be (and is) a beautiful damsel in distress that needs to be rescued. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

Sam Hatcher is a normal, if a bit cynical, farm boy who is clearly not destined to become a farmer. His father recognizes this and sends him off to join the Royal Guard on his sixteenth birthday. Thus begins an adventure that teams him up with Rigby Skeet, a mentor who is slightly deranged, on a quest to rescue the true King from the dungeon in which his slimy, worm-loving brother has imprisoned him.

The story is fast and fun and often surprising, taking a classic adventure story and saturating it with humor and irony, smashing through clichés as quickly as the protagonists smash through obstacles.

Sam is no starry-eyed apprentice and his mentor is no all-knowing master, and this lack of established adventure story roles leaves room for so much more.

This story was loved by every kid with whom it was shared, from age seven to age fifteen, and the adults who read it loved it even more.

This book advocates a new force structure for the US Army. Current US forces are composed of heavy 2D mechanized forces, and light Airborne and Air Assault capable infantry units. The heavy forces have great tactical mobility, but no strategic or operational mobility. The light forces are opposite, with great operational and strategic mobility, but are foot mounted upon arrival on the battlefield.

This book proposes a helicopter transportable light mechanized force for the US Army. This force would give the Air-Mech troops much greater firepower and mobility than the current airborne/air-assault units have. It would also remain air transportable for vertical (3D) envelopment (impossible with heavy mechanized units), as well as having a much smaller logistics requirement than the current heavy mechanized force.

The concept is significant for the US, but is already employed (in a modified form) by Russia. The book is a bit heavy on specific details such as vehicle modifications, and weapons configurations rather than the theories or concepts showing how such a unit will be employed tactically (it covers operational deployment well).It also has little coverage of the USSR/Russian experience with this type of organization.

This is a multi-authored book, and takes the form of a series of chapters rather than an integrated work by one man. As a result many issues are covered in duplicate. As a side note, the book constantly assigns made up names to armored vehicles such as the M-113 or the German Wiesel. These are not officially assigned or recognized names. This ametuerish touch only confuses readers who might not be familiar with gimmicky renaming.

Had the book spent more time explaining the potential tactical employment of the ideas, along with how it will fit in with the new 4th Generation Warfare models now being explored I would have rated it higher. Coming up with a good military theory is only half the battle. Effectively conveying these ideas and why they are important is the other half. This book achieves the first requirement, but fails on the second.

Overall this is an important book in that it proposes significant and valid changes to US Army structure. It is a diamond in the rough, and if the reader can tolerate the various issues mentioned above it is worthwhile.

My first impression, thinking about 2 dimension warfare and three dimensions with lethal, airmobile fighting platforms, was how heavy Army forces have done the powerful, ground assaults in 2 dimensions, with huge linemen like 70 ton M1 tanks, but with Air Mech Strike, it's like technique called 'passing' has been made available. When passing (3D air mech maneuver) was introduced into football, many probably hated it, but where would NFL and college football be today with passing, interceptions, etc. 3D and 2D can 'work' together, just like football is the metaphor for War (principles are similar - Mass, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Economy of Force, Surprise, Simplicity, Security, Objective and Offense.....)

With 3D Air Mech and 2D heavy forces, we have more synergy and options to defeat the enemy, get the 'drop' on them, take the offense, make first downs and get in end zone. Now of course Air Defense can be very dangerous to Air Mech, but so are interceptions in passing game, there is RISK, and Quarterback and receivers DEMAND training, just as future Air Mech Strike troopers should be highly trained and have superb leaders, just like the couragous airborne and glider troops of the 101 Airborne and 82nd, led by great men like General Gavin and General Ridgeway. The brave troopers of 1-7 Cav at Ia Drang with then LTC Moore and other pioneers of airmobility in the First Cav, Big Red One and almost every unit in Vietnam pushed airmobility. Too bad our skills have withered, and it's time to renew those skills. This book is rich with materials, references, and graphics all well balanced to offer a 3 dimensional vision of future war, grounded on historical and current scenarios.

It's time for the Army and rest of DOD to get serious and find some good 'passing' QBs and great Receivers' to make this unique and bold doctrine effective for a powerful 2D and 3D American military on any field of battle, not just in the Superbowl!

Attention readers!

Remember March 15, 2002 well!

This was the day the U.S. Army conducted its first helicopter-based Air-Mech-Strike combat assault in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda...just like described in the book. Co-author Major Charles Jarnot is in Aghanistan NOW and he emailed me the following description:

Air-Mech-Strike in Afghanistan!

The war in Afghanistan has seen several combat firsts for the U.S. Military, first use of an armed un-manned aerial vehicle and the first use of the B-1B Bombers in a close air support role to name just a few. Now in Operation Anaconda another first for the U.S. Army, the first employment of helo-based airmechanized forces by a U.S. field commander in combat, complements of the 3rd Battalion of the famed Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group.

On March 15, 2002, the Canadians attached to the U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade 10th Mountain Division, used U.S. Army CH-47D Chinooks to air assault their armored tracked BV-206 airmechanized vehicles into the operation Anaconda fight.

Airmechanization is a relatively new maneuver warfare doctrine extensively developed by numerous European armies. First theorized in the 1930s by Soviet Field Marshall Tuchachevskiy, today the Russian, British and German armies have fielded airmechanized brigade and division sized units. The concept involves the vertical insertion of tracked combat vehicles via helicopter and fixed wing para-drops. The idea is to use aircraft to break friction with the ground and cross vast treks of terrain and obstacles to quickly gain positional advantage. Once inserted, the mechanized vehicles provide the vertically inserted force with tracked terrain mobility, protection against small-arms and shrapnel and significant increase in firepower via the heavier weapons carried on the vehicles vice foot mobile troops inserted by parachute or helicopter.

The technical challenge to airmechanization is how to build a tracked combat vehicle that has sufficient protection and weapon capacity yet light enough to transported by helicopter or parachute. Advances in information/reconnaissance technology, weapon lethality versus weight and the increases in aircraft
lift performance have all contributed to the boom in airmechanization. Today five other countries beside Russia, Britain and Germany, are in the process of fielding airmechanized brigades, including China. The most expensive part of this concept is the fielding of large numbers of heavy lift helicopters and short field cargo airplanes. The vehicles themselves are relatively inexpensive. In the U.S. Military, the critical air component is already in place with over 600 heavy lift CH-47D Chinook and CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters and 500 plus C-130 Hercules aircraft in the inventory.

But what about the risk posed by ultra-light combat vehicles? Isnt massive armor needed to survive? Lightweight Airmechanized vehicles (AMVs), like those employed by the Canadians in Anaconda, might seem on the surface to be extremely vulnerable. But surviving on the battlefields of Afghanistan may demonstrate a shift in this traditional paradigm. For example, the greatest risk to vehicle movement in Afghanistan is not Taliban/Al-Quedas Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), but rather the millions of land mines laid throughout the country. The Canadian BV-206 AMV used in Anaconda mitigates this risk by virtue of the very light weight and tracked suspension that results in extremely light
ground pressure. This not only contributes to its excellent terrain agility but makes anti-tank mine detonation a very small probability since the BV-206 ground pressure is far below the minimum necessary to set off a typical anti-tank mine.

Wheeled combat vehicles on the other hand, are extremely vulnerable to land mines due to the high ground pressure characteristic of typical wheeled vehicles. The separate cabs of the BV-206 also lessens the potential casualty effects of RPGs by compartmentalizing the blast areas. The lightweight also means that it can approach the enemy from terrain deemed non-useable by heavier armor and thus lessens the chances of moving into a planned vehicular kill zone. These features combined with the lethality of high tech weapons like the Javelin anti-tank guided missile (50 pounds and 2,500 meters range) and light weight auto cannons and grenade launchers like the M-230 or ASP-30 30-mm and the Mark-19 40-mm make AMVs a deadly package for their size.

Airmechanization, a competitor for the Armys planned transformation based on the Striker wheeled armored vehicle? Intuitively all new ideas are intellectually competitive with older concepts and the same is true of the 3-Deminsional airmechanization idea versus the 2-Diminsional Striker program. But in practical application there is no conflict. As most professional Soldiers know, combat is a combined-arms affair where different weapons, platforms and the specialties of different organizations combine to have a collective greater effect than any one part. The Armys Striker transformation is slated for the light infantry divisions and some of the heavier formations. Airmechanization would be more applicable to the Armys Airborne and Air Assault units where the Striker is not scheduled for fielding. As the European armies who have fielded airmechanized formations will tell you. These agile forced-entry units are battlefield enablers to heavier forces and
not necessarily their future replacement.

Like the use of the armed predator UAV in Afghanistan, this first modest employment of airmechanized forces in Anaconda will undoubtedly generate heated debate on the utility of this new and controversial maneuver doctrine. This historical event may be the catalyst for the U.S. Army to convert its own airborne and air assault divisions along the European Airmechanized models or like the ill-fated Pentomic Divisions of the 1950s, be simply a flash in the pan. Still the question that this event will pose for the U.S. Army as whole is the continued validity of parachuting or helo-insertion of dismounted troops close to the enemys crucible of anti-aircraft fire, shoulder-fired missiles and RPGs. The American public and our enemies, should know that the U.S. Armys leadership in Afghanistan is not tied doggedly to any written doctrine. The first use of airmechanized forces in combat by an American commander demonstrates the mental agility and creative prowess of a unified effort that will "leave no stone unturned" in its effort
to defeat the Al Queda and Taliban, to include employing a Canadian airmechanized force!

Major Chuck Jarnot, 101st Airborne Division Liaison
Officer in Afghanistan

Read the Microsoft documentation instead. This book is a thinly disguised rip-off of the Microsoft documentation padded with examples of dubious value. In 590 pages this book manages to add no value or information beyond the original documentation. That's quite an achievement.

If you want to learn ISAPI...think again. This was "hot" 2 years ago...now it is all but dead.

ISAPI's big promise was better performance and memory usage...ironic that it has now fallen in favor to the biggest performance pig of all web applications...ASP. In an age of fast machines and small web apps, rapid development and ease of use wins out over performance.

ISAPI is hard to learn, harder to get right, unstable, bug ridden (if written in MFC) and surprisingly inflexible.

Look, you're a smart person. You want to do the right thing. You don't need to subject yourself to the torture of learning ISAPI. Only hard-core programmers who are tasked with writing a custom web app that is going to get some VERY heavy traffic should even bother with ISAPI.

So why did I give this book 4 stars? There are no good ISAPI books out there. This one has the most information in it and will allow you the best chance to actually develop something that works. Get this book and hit Genusa's (now dusty) ISAPI site. Also spend a lot of time in the Microsoft knowledge base...there are plenty of workarounds and bugs to learn about too.

Keep in mind that with ISAPI you had better be a damn good programmer. If your DLL ever crashes...bye bye web server. This is harder than you think if you are doing "serious" web programming which includes database access.

Smart managers will not allow mission-critical web apps to be developed in ISAPI by a web punk who has never done this before. Do everyone a favor and get a clue. There is a reason why nobody is doing this stuff anymore!

Game over. Go home and don't look back. Go off and learn ASP and Cold Fusion like a good little web programmer. You will have a marketable skill and will actually get things done.

ISAPI is Microsoft's approach to adding capabilities to web serving. There are only a few books that describe how to use ISAPI. This book is the best of them, because the author: 1) provides examples in both C and C++, and 2) compares ISAPI with CGI solutions. Unfortunately, ISAPI is a complicated subject, so more and shorter examples would help elucidate the reader.