A wonderful read, the author's insight that in war, we are not "killing machines", but human beings. John Ciardi writes about experiencing fear, loneliness, despair, and hope. His diary is but a small sample of the soldiers and pilots on Saipan who were so close to the Japanese homeland and no end to the war in sight.

Here's a poet who was a gunner in a B-29 over Tokyo, and who kept a diary during his months on Saipan. Really fine, really worth reading, for the unvarnished thoughts of the man who kept the journal. Unlike most such journals, it hasn't been edited for publication, though there are a few of Ciardi's own afterthoughts.

Having read Lundstrom's excellent First Team books, I was anxious to get my hands on this book which he co-authored. After the first fifty pages, though, I was beginning to wonder about the tune of the book; I had anticipated a bit more down-to-earth approach, but the authors opted for the "hero in the making" style. Actually, the only interesting bits are in the latter half of the book, when Butch finally gets into combat flying, and as is the case with all Lundstrom's combat books, the dogfight descriptions are absolutely great. Likewise, the account of the death of Butch O'Hare is excellent.

The problem is that they only fill about a fourth of the book. The rest is filled with hagiography, which I was surprised to find. After all, we have the book "Bader - the man and his men", giving a detailed account of England's O'Hare, Douglas Bader, minus the holy approach. It is possible to present the life of a true hero without superficial glamour, but Lundstrom and Ewing missed it here.

Another case in point is Blackburn and Hammel's "Jolly Rogers". There, too, a hero is given a thorough treatment, but there's no added sugar. Maybe it is because the authors are not accustomed to writing from this angle; I think I'll stick to their pure combat books.

Authors Ewing and Lundstrom have done an excellent job of telling the story of Butch O'Hare. Born in March, 1914 and raised in St. Louis, Butch loved the simpler things in life. He enjoyed spending time with his father hunting or fishing, or playing with his younger sisters. Family was always important to Butch, and the authors do a good job of stressing this throughout the book. Butch eventually left St. Louis and attend Annapolis, graduating in 1937. Butch's first assignment was aboard the battleship New Mexico, and he quickly developed an affection for the ship's float planes. After serving aboard the New Mexico, Butch signed up for flight training and was stationed at Pensacola, Florida. There, Butch earned his wings.

Butch's most famous flight occurred on February 20, 1942. Butch was on board the carrier Lexington when a group of Japanese torpedo planes attacked the task force. Butch scrambled his F4F Wildcat fighter off the deck and rose to meet the enemy. In the span of about 5 minutes, Butch single-handedly shot down 6 of the attackers while saving the task force from certain damage. Butch was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Roosevelt at a ceremony at the White House. Afterward, Butch embarked on a war bond tour where he visited factories and gave rally speeches. While on a visit to Grumman, Butch was able to talk to designers about the limitations of the F4F. This input led to the development of the F6F fighter, which Butch would fly later in the war.

The authors do a good job of describing in great detail Butch's war days. I felt like I was flying right along with him. Particularly interesting was the detailed description of Butch's final flight. After attacking a group of Japanese planes, Butch's night fighter group was to regroup and head back to their carrier. However, a series of unconfirmed and sketchy events occurred which led to the death of Butch. Some people believe that Butch died as a result of friendly fire, while others believe that a snooping Japanese plane managed to get close enough to shoot Butch down without being detected. The authors claim the latter, and I agree with their assessment.

Butch O'Hare was a true war hero. His bravery and courage were shining examples to others, and his heroism was a true morale booster during the dark early days of the war. A replica of Butch's F4F stands in O'Hare airport, named for him, in Chicago. Read this excellent book and experience the life of a true American hero.

The authors obviously researched their subject quite thoroughly in preparation for this excellent piece of history. In my previous readings, Butch O'Hare has remained somewhat of an enigma. This book provides great insights into the man and his times. This is a great tribute to an American hero. I wish there were more books like this about about other heroes from this time period. Men like John Basilone, Alexander Bonnyman, and Richard Bong need to have their stories retold for a new generation of readers

Prior to September 11, most Americans knew (or cared) little about Afghani politics, but today it seems imperative for us to learn all we can about the history, culture, and politics of this exotic but troubled nation. In *Unholy Wars*, reporter John Cooley has provided a wealth of information about Afghanistan and its geopolitical importance over the past quarter-century, including the 1979 Soviet invasion, the U.S.-supported campaign by the *mujahedin* to expel the Soviets, and the subsequent transformation of the most militant *mujahedin* into the Al-Qaida terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden.

Cooley succeeds in providing an admirably detailed account of the origin of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, including excerpts from the now-infamous 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski published in a French publication in which he boasted about having entrapped the Soviets into invading so that they would experience their own Viet Nam-type military disaster. The involvement of the CIA, along with Pakistan's ISI, in supporting and supplying the *mujahedin* is laid out clearly, and Cooley even devotes a chapter to the significance of the opium trade as a source of funding for Islamist armies both during and after the campaign against the Soviets.

Other chapters discuss how the multi-national Islamist "freedom fighters" dispersed after 1989 to spread their gospel of militant Islam and their terrorist tactics to Egypt, Algeria, Chechenya, the Philippines, and ultimately, the United States. The book was completed prior to the events of September 11, 2001, but the material dealing with previous Al-Qaida attacks in the U.S., including the first bombing of the World Trade Center, is vital reading for people interested in historical background to the current crisis.

The main problem with this book is that whereas Cooley presents a veritable blizzard of "facts," there is very little accompanying analysis. The presentation reads like a first draft, a mass of semi-digested material in dire need of editing and refining. Particularly in the chapters pertaining to recent terrorist activities in nations outside of Afghanistan, the endless parade of names, dates, places, factions and parties will make even the most resolute reader's head spin.

Overall, the book seems to have been thrown together way too quickly, as evidenced by an appalling lack of careful proofreading or fact-checking. Examples of gaffes that should never have made it to the final galleys include the claim that California's Chico State University is located in Nevada, the declaration that the time period between 1956 and 1970 constituted 24 years, and a reference to the "two 110-foot towers" of the World Trade Center. Whoops! Aside from the obvious sloppiness evidenced here, the inclusion of these kinds of careless errors cannot help but cast doubt on the overall accuracy of Cooley's reporting in this book.

Given that so far there is but a handful of books in English that provide historical background pertaining to Al Qaida and international terrorism generally, I would say that Unholy Wars is definitely worth reading. We can only hope, however, that a more analytical and carefully written work on these subjects will emerge soon.

John Cooley describes the US intervention in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and its aftereffects. The US state, assisted by Thatcher, trained and armed almost a quarter of a million Islamic mercenaries drawn from around the world to fight against Afghani national liberation. It was not supporting a 'jihad' but manipulating dupes, just as it has used other groups to fight proxy wars in Africa and Asia, colonial wars it labelled wars against communism.

The US state intervened first in Afghanistan. On 3 July 1979, President Carter signed a secret directive authorising covert aid to the mujehadin. The CIA promoted drug traffic in the Golden Crescent to raise funds for them. The Egyptian, Saudi, British, French and Israeli Governments all sold them arms. The CIA supported their sabotage and guerrilla operations inside the Soviet Union. Only in December 1979, five months after the US intervention, did Soviet troops enter Afghanistan.

The war's effects on Afghanistan have been terrible: four million refugees, the land in ruins, continued strife even after the Soviet Union withdrew its troops, the Taliban dominating vast areas of the country. Further afield, the US-created mercenaries have destabilised Algeria, Chechenya, and the former Central Asian Republics of the Soviet Union, among others. Some of them tried to create a separatist 'Eastern Turkestan' in China's Western region of Xinjiang. However, China has defeated these efforts, and the Algerian Government succeeded in quelling the reactionary forces trying to overthrow it.

In this book, Cooley portrays the US state as a good sorcerer, who mistakenly released shadowy yet invincible forces, which it is now trying to crush. He pretends that the mercenaries are now separate from and opposed to the US state. In fact, the mercenaries are doing just what the US state wants, trying to destabilise any Government in the world that shows any sign of independence. So Cooley's book both prettifies the US's real foreign policy, and tries to legitimise its globocop role.

Former President Jimmy Carter was awarded the 2002 Nobel Prize for his Middle East peace efforts. Yet Carter's Central Asian policies were directly responsible for the spawning of international terrorism as we know it now. On Juy 3, 1979, Carter, acting on the recommendation of his National Security Advisor, cold-warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski, began clandestinely supporting Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan. Carter may rue this now. But at the time, he believed Afghani Islamist rebels were simply fellow Believers denied their religious freedom by the "godless" Marxist government in Kabul. Brzezinski knew better. But as he stated in a 1998 interview: "This secret operation was an excellent idea. Its effect was to draw the Russians into the Afghan trap." When the Soviet Army entered Afghanistan in late December 1979, Brzezinski gloated, "Now we can give the USSR its own Vietnam War!" Brzezinski and Carter's CIA Director Adm. Stansfield Turner freely acknowledged that "possible adverse consequences of the anti-communist alliance with Afghan Islamists (and shortly afterward with their radical Muslim allies around the world) -- the growth of a new international terrorist movement and global outreach of Central Asian drug-trafficking -- did not weigh heavily, if at all" in their calculations. Brzezinski, asked later whether he regretted arming and training future terrorists, retorted: "What was more important in world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire? A few over-excited Islamists, or the liberation of eastern Europe?" Brzezinski's native Poland was, of course, in eastern Europe... Carter encouraged Islamist incursions into the Central Asian republics of the USSR, ostensibly to foment religious rebellion in those secular Islamic states. As Brzezinski admitted, the US intended to "build bridges to states having a strong Muslim identity." However, the insurgents frequently committed small-scale terrorist acts by planting bombs in crowded markets, bus depots, apartment and government buildings, and through kidnappings and executions. Carter's sincere but misguided religious naivety regarding Islamism was rewarded with the Iranian hostage crisis which ended his chances of a second term.
The Reagan regime continued Carter's Central Asian policy, and began to deploy an army of Muslim zealots from geographically strategic Pakistan and wealthy Saudi Arabia. Jihadists from every corner of the Muslim world were recruited and trained by the CIA and US military Special Forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even at US military bases. Reagan vastly increased funding of mujahedin "holy warriors" who established their own facilities -- later to become terrorist training camps -- in Afghanistan. There, exiled Saudi billionaire Usama bin Laden started his ascent from mujahed commander to international terrorist mastermind. Following the death of Leonid Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev implored the UN to intervene and help negociate an end to the Soviet Afghan quagmire. At this, Reagan responded with his infamous exhortation to the mujahedin "Declare holy jihad and go for the victory!" After the Soviet withdrawal, the government of Afghanistan collapsed. The various mujahedin factions began to fight amongst themselves for political supremacy, territory, and opium. The fundamentalist Wahabist Taliban emerged victorious. The so-called northern alliance was (and still is) a loose coalition of warlords and bandits with the motive of personal power, tribal bigotry, and drug profits for its opposition to the Saudi-sponsored Taliban. Moscow regarded the Northern Alliance as the sole barrier between Wahabist extremism and the vulnerable bordering Central Asian states. Russia committed ongoing support to the northern forces, whose leader was, ironically, one of the most notorious CIA-trained rebel operatives during the Soviet Afghan War.
Normally, I am not impressed by right-of-center interpretations of history, because they so frequently attempt to absolve the US of responsibility for disasterous policy. But Cooley has written an honest, unbiased account of the birth and rise of a world-threatening evil. And "Unholy Wars" does not spare recriminations toward any country whose actions contributed to the empowerment of international terrorism. It is a frighteningly eye-opening and timely book. All I can say is, read it now!

The book covers quite a bit of the build up before combat. The begining covers some interesting history of the Gulf and it's oil production. This helps us fully understand what brought us to war there in the 90's. Most of it concerns operational/longistical aspects of the Sheild/Storm. I would have given it 5 stars for glossy pages, more photos, and more detailed operational descriptions of the navy ship's day to day action in the gulf, especially the Battleships. I've read some of these stories in other books. One thing I can say is that it changed my mind on a lot of things that I incorrectly remembered about watching the war on TV.

This is an overall thorough, but very dry account of the US Navy's involvement in the Persian Gulf War. The authors, as part of the Naval Historical Center, obviously had incredible access to firsthand sources, and it shows. It does offer some good insights and presents a "warts and all" perspective at times.

The book opens with a brief and useful historical overview of the Navy's presence in the Gulf and the run up to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. While the story of how the US Military arrived at its plan to fight the war is interesting, the account of the logistics of the buildup is somewhat tedious. I realize logistics are the backbone of any military operation; but it just wasn't that interesting except as part of an official history.

The authors deserve credit for addressing the problems the Navy faced: a lack of integration with the other services, infighting among the Generals (Army and USAF) and Admirals, and an ill-conceived mine laying operations that cost two pilots their lives, for example. It avoids being "whiney" about slights during the air campaign from an Air Force dominated air warfare command structure, yet is somewhat bogged down in details about tasking orders and control systems.

This book will probably only be interesting to the more die hard Naval historian and students of Joint Military Operations for lessons learned. For a good account of modern Naval Warfare, I would be more inclined to recommend Admiral Sandy Woodward's "One Hundred Days" about the Falklands War.

I actually have a paper copy published prior to this one by GPO (I think). If anyone is worried about price, they may want to investigate purchasing that edition. Great book. It's nice to read about the Naval part of the war instead of just the Army part. Notice in most books, there isn't even a map showing the gulf itself - just the land masses!

Although written in 1957, This book gives a factual account relating to the loss of the Maine, America's first battleship. Good historical background account that a recent National Geographic article used for background information. The controversy rages on today. Was she mined, or was it an internal explosion due to a design defect in the Maine class battleships. The only thing I would like to see added is Admiral Hymen Rickovers account, written in 1976,which he "proves" and contends, that it was an internal explosian that sent the Maine down in Havana harbor. The incident that started the Spanish-American war and made the U.S. into a world power is well worth reading.

The "Naval Terms Dictionary" is essentually that, a dictionary of terms often used in the Navy. While it is geared for the modern navy, a good many antiquated terms (from the age of sail) are in it as well, though not all.

While the "Naval Terms Dictionary" is a great tool, I have found a few drawbacks to it. While it is set up alphabetically like a normal dictionary, it completely lacks any sort of pronunciation guide for words (some of those terms are pronounced funny) and a listing of what type of word it is (noun, verb, adj, etc). It also neglects to seperate different definitions for the words, opting to give both in a paragraph form. You can usually define the type of word it is from the definition, but it would have been a little more professional to write it in a standard dictionary format.

Overall, despite its relatively minor flaws, this book is a great tool for folks who are in the navy, or read a lot of naval history and fiction.

Unlike other Civil War generals, John Buford did not leave behind a large body of correspondence, and he died before the end of the war. These two factors, combined with a lack of other source material led to Edward Longacre's initial reluctance to begin researching this biography. His reverence for the book The Killer Angels, and his service as a technical advisor to Sam Elliott (who played Buford in the movie Gettysburg), combined to help him overcome his fears. The result is this 248-page biography. The book has many strong points. Longacre clearly describes Buford's dealings with the politics of the Army of the Potomac - especially his rise to command after being closely affiliated with three disgraced generals: Pope, Burnside, and Hooker. He does well in conveying a sense of Buford's growing disillusionment as the Army of the Potomac missed many opportunities to destroy the Army of Northern Virginia after Gettysburg. The chapter on Gettysburg is probably the best in the book as it gives the reader a good insight into the problems faced by a Civil War general on the field who had to assess terrain and eploy his troopers to take advantage of the ground while trying to anticipate the probable actions of the enemy. The book is well-produced, has an extensive bibliography, and good maps - even though the typography is sometimes jarring. People looking for an exhaustive "tell-all" biography will not find it here because of the lack of primary source material to work with. Within these limits, though, Edward Longacre has written a worthwhile book about a long-neglected commander.

Many readers, even educated readers, see the US Civil War as an event in a glass bubble between 1861 and 1865 and the people who fought that conflict as having sprung up at First Bull Run. Mr. Longacre does an excellent job of giving depth and context to a truly professional cavalryman -- John Buford. A product of the "Old Army" and the ante-belleum Dragoons, General Buford was representative of the best qualities of that hard profession. While the popular movie "Gettysburg" may have brought General Buford to the eye of the public, he had a long and varied career before June 30 - July 1, 1863. Longacre puts it all in perspective.

Edward Longacre's General John Buford: A Military Biography is exactly what it presents itself to be-a military biography. Unlike more famous commanders, Buford's biography is not bogged down with mind-numbing detail, but instead focuses only briefly on the early and non-military aspects of his life. This is primarily due to the lack of information about Buford, which Longacre freely admits was a major problem in the writing of this book. This is not a point of detraction however, as Longacre fills in the historical gaps with very plausible suppositions based on Buford's well-known character.

One of the more interesting aspects of this work was the description of Buford's early career on the plains. In the literature and television programming that followed the release of Gettysburg, one had the impression that Buford was a battle-hardened Indian fighter in the pre-war years. Longacre does a good job of showing that while he had some experience, he was by no means an expert in cavalry warfare when the Civil War broke out. Nevertheless, this part of the book was fascinating because it turns out that Buford was involved in several little known, but major campaigns in the antebellum west, including actions in Kansas and against Bringham Young's Mormons.

The Civil War career of John Buford definitely climaxed on McPherson's ridge, July 1, 1863, it is therefore proper that his biography climaxes on the same episode of his life. Though exciting to read about, it was at the same time disappointing, as Longacre seemed intent upon dispelling every popular myth about Buford at Gettysburg-it seems the truth never makes a good story!

After Gettysburg, the author tracks the twilight of Buford's career and life, as he literally rode himself to death. Though Longacre is over-zealous and unconvincing in his evaluation of Buford's contribution to cavalry warfare, he does leave the reader questioning how the war may have been different if he had lived.

John Hersey's Hiroshima is one of the better books I have read about the atomic bomb that brought an end to World War II. His personal account of the six hibakusha took the devastation and destruction the bomb brought to a more significant level. The stories of Miss Sasaki, Dr. Fujii, Mrs. Nakamura, Dr. Sasaki, Father Kleinsorge, and Reverend Tanimoto touched my heart---as well as many others I know. The vivid details he used made me realize that when we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, we dropped pain and disaster on the hundreds of thousands of people living there. The last chapter, "The Aftermath," really brought home the effects of the bombing, because even after 40 years many Japanese were still suffering from radiation sickness and other diseases. It was definitely a long, hard road to recovery these people had to travel. No matter what the history books say or what Hersey has presented in his novel, though, the bombing can be summed up with one phrase: "Shikata ga-nai---it can't be helped."

John Hersey's Hiroshima truly captures the horror of the historic event. This extremely accurate book should be read by everyone. John Hersey gives a vivid description of the lives of 6 people who lived through the traumatic experience of the bombing at Hiroshima. Through their stories, the reader can see how hard it was to deal with the pain and suffering that people had to go through. Hiroshima helps people to appriciate all races, colors, religions, etc. because it creates a sense of community. A hundred thousand people died due to the atomic bomb. This book helps to put faces and names to the statistics. It makes the reader realize that those who died were people with dreams and wishes for their futures and their families. Those innocent lives were cut short within minutes because of the bomb's disastrous effects.

The book Hiroshima, written by John Hersey, is a great book to read. The book gives a magnificent portrayal of the struggles that the people of Hiroshima went through after the bombing by the Americans during World War II. The constantly changing point of view, in each section of the five chapters, might be confusing, but it keeps the book moving at a steady pace and makes the reader want to find out what will happen next to each person. The different stories of each suvivor shows how ever person, no matteer if they were rich or poor, young or old, helped as many people as they could, no matter if they were friends or not. Also, the book gives a feeling of almost being there with the people and feeling their pain and suffering from burns, cuts, and anything else that happened to them. The book also shows the people's fear of another attack on the city by the Americans. The changing of characters adds depth to the story, by adding to the main plot. These additions help explain what happened to them during and after the dropping of the atomic bomb. The styles, way of life, and fears that people had during the late 1940's and early 1950's is also greatly displayed within the entire book. The main focus, in some cases, is not the dropping of the atomic bomb, but rather the people coming togther for one cause and dealing with the tragedy of losing loved ones and how they will rebuild there city. Each character also changesin different ways after the horrific events of World War II and the bombing. If I had to recommend a book to a person thats likes World War II history or someone that just likes to read it would definitely be this book. It would be this book cause of the time it took to write and the readability of the book.

events leading to independence. After reading Unger's work, you would think that John Hancock single handedly brought this country to freedom. The author's extreme adulation for his subject constantly paints Hancock in positive light and ALWAYS as the victim of others, never at fault. Lame excuses are given for why Hancock did not receive this office or that praise. One of the most disturbing elements is the vindictive condemnation of Samuel Adams (probably the man most singularly responsible for influencing the Declaration of Independence) is incredibly overdone and grossly inaccurate. Speeches which were written by Adams (and some given by Adams) are credited to Hancock, a man who is overwhelmingly acknowledged as lacking the writing ability for such speeches. Hancock is instrumental in bringing about revolution but unfortunately, not in the way suggested by this author.

So John Hancock turns out to be a pretty interesting fellow, the millionaire head of a mercantile empire who initially gets dragged into revolutionary politics to prevent the revolutionaries from vandalizing his property, but converts and becomes a leading, if moderate, revolutionary voice. A vain man and one accustomed to luxury, he nevertheless gives very generously of both his money and his time to the revolutionary cause and to the governing of Massachusetts.

His career includes stints as the president of the continental congress, member of the Massachusetts legislature and governor of the newly independent state of MA. His roles in the revolution and the adoption of the constitution are central: as president of congress, his is initially the only signature on the Declaration of Independence; he coordinates and equips the continental army, including large expenditures out of his own pocket; he turns the tide in Massachusetts in favor of ratification.

So the biography is interesting because the man is interesting, even pivotal. It's also well-written, in the sense of being easy to read.

But the book's also a little spiteful. Anyone who clashes with Hancock, ever, comes in for a little sting from the biographer's pen. Sam Adams, in particular, is described as a bloodthirsty, erratic and backstabbing radical, who undercuts and betrays Hancock at every turn. Even George Washington is painted as behaving irrationally, in contrast with Hancock's genteel polish, in respect of some offers of hospitality that Hancock extends to the general, and Unger seems incapable of mentioning John Adams without calling him "fat little John Adams".

My cousin wrote this book, so my review will be somewhat biased. However, as I try to be an impartial observer I must say that Harlow has really done a fantastic job with this book! While John Hancock certainly was an integral part in an amazing and interesting period in USA's history, his life really came alive in this book. And while the story of a Revolution is very interesting in itself, the historical reseach Harlow presents is very relevant and made me understand the history in greater detail. Even the part of history that used to bore me the most (reports from the first Continental Congress in Philadelphia) were fascinating from John Hancock's perspective as Harlow presented them.

I thought this book was very boring and very dry. This book was chosen by my history professor for my History of American Foreign Relations class so I had no choice in reading this book. Some parts were very interesting, and it held my attention for a while, but then the authors would go back to the dry and monontonous tone that put me to sleep. If you're a history buff, you might enjoy this book. If not, I don't suggest you buying it.

Honestly, if you buy a book entitled "From Isolation to War" in the AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES, you're bound to be disappointed if you're A) Not a history buff or B) a complete idiot. Hopefully, having at least found this book listed on Amazon, you are neither. I have worked with Professor Doenecke, and used his book as a textbook in two classes. It is well-written, thoroughly-researched, dryly humorous at points, and extremely incisive. A true pleasure to read, especially if you are aware that history is a force in our lives, and will continue to be so forevermore.