Preemptive warfare is the practice of attempting to avoid an enemy's seemingly imminent attack by taking military action against them first. It is undertaken in self-defense. Preemptive war is often confused with preventive war, which is an attack launched to defeat a potential opponent and is an act of aggression. Preemptive war is thought to be justified and honorable, while preventive war violates international law. In the real world, the distinction between the two is highly contested. In First Strike, author Matthew J. Flynn examines case studies of preemptive war throughout history, from Napoleonic France to the American Civil War, and from Hitler's Germany to the recent U.S. invasion of Iraq. Flynn takes an analytical look at the international use of military and political preemption throughout the last two hundred years of western history, to show how George W. Bush's recent use of this dubiously "honorable" way of making war is really just the latest of a long line of previously failed attempts. Balanced and historically grounded, First Strike provides a comprehensive history of one of the most controversial military strategies in the history of international foreign policy.

Preemptive warfare is the practice of attempting to avoid an enemy's seemingly imminent attack by taking military action against them first. It is undertaken in self-defense. Preemptive war is often confused with preventive war, which is an attack launched to defeat a potential opponent and is an act of aggression. Preemptive war is thought to be justified and honorable, while preventive war violates international law. In the real world, the distinction between the two is highly contested. In First Strike, author Matthew J. Flynn examines case studies of preemptive war throughout history, from Napoleonic France to the American Civil War, and from Hitler's Germany to the recent U.S. invasion of Iraq. Flynn takes an analytical look at the international use of military and political preemption throughout the last two hundred years of western history, to show how George W. Bush's recent use of this dubiously "honorable" way of making war is really just the latest of a long line of previously failed attempts. Balanced and historically grounded, First Strike provides a comprehensive history of one of the most controversial military strategies in the history of international foreign policy.

George Washington became president of the newly formed United States just as the French Revolution erupted in 1789, a moment that would pave the way for Napoleon and his eventual empire. In this momentous year, the Americans consolidated the gains of their rebellion, and the French embarked upon a more radical transformation of their own. Though strikingly different, the American and French revolutions gave rise to Washington and Napoleon, two wildly popular generals who led new forces on battlefields across their respective territories. Matthew J. Flynn and Stephen E. Griffin’s military analysis of these two men includes the political context of their lives. As a military equal of Napoleon, Washington posed just as great a threat to the life of the fledging American republic that Napoleon did to representative government in France. Both generals assumed their offices with a similar purpose in mind: transferring sovereignty from the people to an individual leader. Yet, Washington chose the republican path, while Napoleon sank into despotism. Flynn and Griffin show how leadership is shaped by the society that governs it, thus highlighting the differences between Washington and Napoleon. The authors demonstrate that the two were equally ambitious and that each chose paths to power reflecting their turbulent political times. In this fascinating book, the characters of these two great generals, statesmen, and icons emerge to show the divergence of their towering geniuses.

This rereading of the history of American westward expansion examines the destruction of Native American cultures as a successful campaign of ""counterinsurgency."" Paramilitary figures such as Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett ""opened the West"" and frontiersmen infiltrated the enemy, learning Indian tactics and launching ""search and destroy"" missions. Conventional military force was a key component but the interchange between militia, regular soldiers, volunteers and frontiersmen underscores the complexity of the conflict and the implementing of a ""peace policy."" The campaign's outcome rested as much on the civilian population's economic imperatives as any military action. The success of this three-century war of attrition was unparalleled but ultimately saw the victors question the morality of their own actions.