Since World War II; the United States has been engaged in near-constant military conflict abroad; often with ill-defined objectives; ineffectual strategy; and uncertain benefits. In this era of limited congressional oversight and “wars of choice;†the executive and the armed services have shared the primary responsibility for making war. The negotiations between presidents and their generals thus grow ever more significant; and understanding them becomes essential.Matthew Moten traces a sweeping history of the evolving roles of civilian and military leaders in conducting war; demonstrating how war strategy and national security policy shifted as political and military institutions developed; and how they were shaped by leaders’ personalities. Early presidents established the principle of military subordination to civil government; and from the Civil War to World War II the president’s role as commander-in-chief solidified; with an increasingly professionalized military offering its counsel. But General Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination to President Harry Truman during the Korean War put political-military tensions on public view. Subsequent presidents selected generals who would ally themselves with administration priorities. Military commanders in Vietnam; Iraq; and Afghanistan did just that―and the results were poorly conceived policy and badly executed strategy.The most effective historical collaborations between presidents and their generals were built on mutual respect for military expertise and civilian authority; and a willingness to negotiate with candor and competence. Upon these foundations; future soldiers and statesmen can ensure effective decision-making in the event of war and bring us closer to the possibility of peace.
#320769 in Books Ingramcontent 2017-04-24Original language:English 9.50 x 1.10 x 6.40l; #File Name: 0674047427352 pagesBefore Orthodoxy The Satanic Verses in Early Islam
Review
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful. heroicBy David Reid RossShahab Ahmed wrote his doctoral thesis on the Satanic Verses controversy; and devoted several articles to its development through the centuries. He planned a magnum opus in three volumes to organise his findings. This book is the first of those volumes; he passed away before he could do much with the latter two. Based on what I read here; this is an incalculable loss to the historical study of Islam. At least we have this one.Ahmed sets himself in the Motzki school of "The Hadith"; but takes time to delimit what "The Hadith" means. Among non-Muslims the Hadith's skeptics descend from Joseph Schacht; whose field was jurisprudence. In law; the correct practice of Islam was paramount; the people of the Sunna devolved into the ahl al-hadith; and were not above forging asanid. However other fields of "The Hadith" throve in parallel. One was the tradition of Qur'anic commentary; tafsir; which might explicate verses with no legal implications. There was also the tradition of... pure tradition: of narratives about the Prophets (not just Muhammad!); and of the Muslim community's history. (Further fields; like apocalyptic; are not germane to the topic.) In these fields; which Muslims have termed riqaq; the narrators rarely bothered to trace pure chains to the Prophet; and the classical hadith-critics like Ibn Ma'in rarely bothered to review those chains. It was common for a muhaddith to say that we may use - say - Abu Ma'shar in riqaq but never in "hadith" that is; legal hadith. Ahmed argues the precise opposite: riqaqi asanid should be presumed authentic as far back as they claim to be; which is rarely earlier than the Marwani era.Which is not to say that the transmissions were always clear or consistent. This book's main project is to investigate these. Ahmed finds the transmissions consistent in meaning but often variant in literal text. The Ibn Ishaq tradition in this case comes out poorly. To the extent Ibn Ishaq taught a mabaath (which Ahmed terms; erroneously; his sira); its transmissions here differ wildly. The difference seems geographic; between Rayy (Tabari) and Kufa (Ibn Hisham and Utaridi): in Rayy Ibn Ishaq delivered a well-organised narrative from Muhammad bin Ka'b al-Qurazi; but in Kufa was perhaps either equivocal (to Utaridi) or even silent (to Ibn Hisham). Other transmitters like Abu Ma'shar step up with independent confirmation of Qurazi's narrative; which match best Ibn Ishaq in Rayy. (Personally; concerning a hadith in the apocalyptic genre; I have found similar time/space differences in a Qatada-based tradition cluster.) From this Ahmed reconstructs an outline (ma'ni) of Qurazi's narrative; with the warning that it can never be more than an outline (lafz). This is still pretty good for the early 100s / 720s!Ahmed goes on to trace asanid to many other muhaddithun and mufassirun. He notes that *almost every* second-century writer of tafsir and Prophetic biography notes this story. Six of them trace their accounts as far back as Ibn al-'Abbas in the 60s / 680s; with similar content.This leads Ahmed to contrast the first Muslims' acceptance of the Satanic Verses hadith with modern Muslims' rejection of it. He argues that modern Muslims default to the ahl al-hadith; who want for their Prophet a perfect example of humankind and a vessel for God's Word. The Prophet's first biographers had a wholly opposed aim: they needed *drama*. An epic hero is not perfect; he is faced with challenges; that he might overcome them and win. The Qur'an being a Divine text can best enter into an epic if the hero-prophet is faced with temptation related to the text itself. For this; the Satanic Verses anecdote serves excellently.Ahmed concludes that; as a result; we are still left agreeing with modern Muslims; that the Satanic Verses tale be an invention by early pious story-tellers - Arabs call them qussas. It is; nonetheless; an extremely early instance of the genre and likely also a witness at least to sura 53 and maybe to Q. 22:53 too.As with Sulayman Bashear; one wonders if the author's premature death had intimidated his editors. This book uses footnotes and digressions to the extent they take over the text. For instance it provides; piecemeal; a new translation and transliteration of all Surat al Najm over pp. 69; 81-2 and in their footnotes; taking up much space. Distractions like this belong to an appendix.Despite that; this book is excellent and; at its low price; difficult to justify NOT buying. Anybody interested in the Satanic Verses controversy; and in Islamic historical memory generally; needs this book.2 of 2 people found the following review helpful. Great book! Tons of referencesBy Tony RI meant to write this review months ago. Please excuse my unorganized review but i have so much to say about such a great book.I was blown away by Ahmed's work on Ibn Taymiyaj and the Sayanic verse; so I knew that Ahmed would deliver another awesome work.Ahmed references many books that are not available in English and could make it difficult to prove that certain giants in Muslim scholarship actually said that this event is considered authentic (recently one volume of Ibn hajar's 'fath al bari' was released with more volumes to come).Before Orthodoxy talks about the differences between the ahl al sunnah and the ahl al sirah when approaching oral tradition. Eventually the hadith scholars gained popularity and got to define what constituted as authentic and inauthentic.I really liked that Ahmed provides the chain of transmission with hadith critical explanations from known authorities and their methodology.Get this book!
