"A People's History of the U.S.Military" by Michael A. Bellesiles (2012)

In this well written book, author Michael A. Bellesiles has taken the entire history of the United States and boiled it down into 10 chapters, each covering a period of our nation’s history and the role the Armed Forces played in those conflicts. It is more of a sociological look at the evolution of our national defense than an actual history of the battles fought. In short, this is a very revealing book about how our citizen soldiers became the Armed Forces as we know them today. From the early militias to the mountains of Afghanistan, Mr. Bellesiles has written a highly readable account of an often overlooked perspective of the wars we have fought, as well as the ordinary men and women who have fought them.

Beginning with the American Revolution and its local militia, the author explores the weaknesses and strengths of an untrained yet highly motivated force and how that motivation was essential to achieving victory on the battlefield. Surprisingly, even General Washington had his doubts about local militia and their ability to stand up against well trained troops. By the war’s end he had a completely different outlook on the subject.

The War of 1812 was supposed to mimic the victory of the militia in the Revolution, but instead exposed the weakness of not having a standing army to defend our young nation. The only real victory on the battlefield in that war came weeks after the peace had been negotiated at Ghent, with neither side gaining a thing. That victory, by General Jackson in New Orleans in January 1815, only served to further obfuscate our nations need for a real army.

The War with Mexico, which set us up for our own Civil War, was fought with a hodge-podge of both militia and Federal Troops. Their performance made the public, as well as the government, understand that we did need some sort of standing Army to defend the nation. Our Navy was doing a splendid job of defending our coast and even raiding other vessels, but our land was still vulnerable.

The Civil War changed much of the prevalent thinking about drafting soldiers for a specific term of service, although the laws did allow you to buy out of the draft, or else send a substitute. The Draft Riots in New York City during July 1863 were largely the consequences of what many believed to be the unfair practice of allowing these substitutes.

The Indian Wars of the late half of the 19^th Century galvanized our cavalry troops, who would be the bulwark of our national defense for decades to come. And during the Spanish American War, which extended from Cuba to the Philippines, our cavalry troops were landed by our Navy wherever they were needed.

World War One was fought by volunteers. Although there was a national registration of men eligible for service, the war was largely fought and won by volunteers eager to experience the “glory” of conflict.

After the First World War ended America found herself taking a leading role in the world. By 1940 that role had grown so large, and the threat of a new war was so imminent, that we began an actual draft lottery. This would set the template for military service up to and through the Korean and Vietnam Wars. It was a good system, with every eligible American being called upon to serve his country. 

The draft also acted as a deterrent against becoming involved in “questionable” wars, such as Vietnam. Resistance to the draft in that conflict helped to bring the war to an end, ushering in the all-volunteer military which we have today.

In this lively written and informative book, the author has taken the time and effort to chronicle the history of our Armed Forces and what the continuing evolution of our military means in an ever changing and increasingly dangerous world. This is a great book for veterans and also lovers of military history.

"Two Americans" by William Lee Miller (2012)

On the surface Presidents Truman and Eisenhower would seem to have little in common. One was a former artilleryman who saw combat in World War One, going on to become a failed haberdashery owner, before entering politics and becoming President of the United States. He was the last President to have not attained a college degree. The other was a product of the military academy at West Point who never saw combat, but went on to lead the Allied Powers to victory in the Second World War. Both of their Presidencies were bracketed by Harvard graduates. What makes this book so interesting, and the perfect companion to last week’s selection “Red Scare” by Griffin Fariello, is the time in which both men lived and how they handled some of the same problems in uniquely different ways.

These two men from the Midwest, both faced the challenges of their times in very different ways, yet both were deeply committed to a strong America. The differences in their views on dropping the Atom bomb; at a time when Eisenhower was preparing to move all his equipment to the Pacific for the final push into Japan; is fascinating. We had already had success with firebombing cities like Dresden and Hamburg in Germany, and done the same in Japan. As a matter of fact, with the incendiary bombing of Tokyo, as well as other cities, those bombings killed more people in one night than both of the two atom bombs combined. The real reason behind the decision to drop the bomb was that the Nazi’s were already working on a bomb of their own; making it imperative that we develop, and use, ours first.  Had we not, the whole face of post war Europe would have been changed drastically, with the Soviets taking over much more than just Eastern Europe.

Socially, both men were not that far apart. Although not a “New Deal Democrat” by any means, Eisenhower was concerned with the stability of the middle class in the same way as Truman. On the subject of Civil Rights Eisenhower was not as groundbreaking as Truman was. Although Ike favored the integration of the Armed Forces in 1947, he dragged his feet on the Little Rock integration issue, waiting for it to turn violent rather than use his leadership as a bully pulpit for change.

In an engaging and highly readable fashion, the author charts the course taken by both men, from their earliest days, through to the pinnacle of their careers as the respective leaders of the free world. And though there is much difference between the two men, they were more alike than either would ever admit. Ah, but to have the likes of these two running for office now…