|
Showing 1 - 6 of
6 matches in All Departments
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.
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.
|
You may like...
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R383
R318
Discovery Miles 3 180
Loot
Nadine Gordimer
Paperback
(2)
R383
R318
Discovery Miles 3 180
|