From the American Revolution to the global war on terror; U.S. Army doctrine has evolved to regulate the chaos of armed conflict by providing an intellectual basis for organizing; training; equipping; and operating the military. Walter E. Kretchik analyzes the service's keystone doctrine over three centuries to reveal that the army's leadership is more forward thinking and adaptive than has been generally believed. The first comprehensive history of Army doctrine; Kretchik's book fully explores the principles that have shaped the Army's approach to warfare. From Regulations For the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States in 1779 to modern-day field manuals; it reflects the fashioning of doctrine to incorporate the lessons of past wars and minimize the uncertainty and dangers of battle.Kretchik traces Army doctrine through four distinct eras: 1779-1904; when guidelines were compiled by single authors or a board of officers in tactical drill manuals; 1905-1944; when the Root Reforms fixed doctrinal responsibility with the General Staff; 1944-1962; the era of multiservice doctrine; and; beginning in 1962; coalition warfare with its emphasis on interagency cooperation. He reveals that doctrine has played a significant role in the Army's performance throughout its history-although not always to its advantage; as it has often failed to anticipate accurately the nature of the "next war" and still continues to be locked in a debate between advocates of conventional warfare and those who emphasize counterinsurgency approaches. Each chapter presents individuals who helped define and articulate Army doctrine during each period of its history-including George Washington and Baron von Steuben in the eighteenth century; Emory Upton and Arthur Wagner in the nineteenth; and Elihu Root and William DePuy in the twentieth. Each identifies the "first principles" set down in manuals covering such topics as tactics; operations; and strategy; size; organization; and distribution of forces; and the promise and challenges of technological innovation. Each also presents specific cases that analyze how effectively the Army actually applied a particular era's doctrine. Doctrine remains the basis of instruction in the Army school system; ensuring that all officers and enlisted soldiers share a common intellectual framework. This book elucidates that framework for the first time.
#1440960 in Books University Press of Kansas 2004-03-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 9.34 x 1.09 x 6.34l; 1.32 #File Name: 0700613048310 pages
Review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Review - Crucible of American DemocracyBy John MuggeAndrew Shankman gets five stars right off the bat just for his choice of subject matter. By focusing on the political debate in Pennsylvania in the first decades of the nineteenth century; insight into the nature of America's internal political and economic conflicts is gained which otherwise might be missed by those who focus too narrowly on the national scene. Shankman identifies the different strains of Jeffersonianism that remained after Federalism was mostly discredited and defeated. In Crucible of American Democracy he details the debate which raged among Pennsylvania Jeffersonians in the wake of the Federalist defeat as to the meanings of capitalism; freedom; and equality in a democracy.Jeffersonian thought is initially illuminated by its contrast with Federalism; especially as represented by the writings and actions of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton is the great architect of the Federalist vision of America. He admired the British and aimed to establish America to a great extent in its image. He was for a strong central government; would have had a president elected for life; wanted and even for a time established a standing army; and favored the authority of the federal government to tax the population directly. Both politically and culturally; Hamilton would promote an elite class; an upper crust of privileged citizens with the wisdom and leisure to govern. Most telling were his efforts to establish the First Bank of the United States in which government debt was accepted at par to whoever held that debt. This rewarded speculators over those among the general population such as farmers and former revolutionary soldiers who had sold their bond shares issued to them in lieu of wages for pennies on the dollar. He also promoted such enterprises as the Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures. Here again Hamilton favored investors over the craftsmen who directly produced manufactures. These measures would promote control by the governing elite; apparently in Hamilton's mind to be equated with wealthy financiers and merchants. Such were the men who; in Hamilton's view; were in possession of the wisdom with which to lead the new nation.Jefferson and Madison were among those who; though believing in a proper role for the central government; balked at many of these Federalist ideas. They; too; believed in a kind of natural aristocracy; but an elite supported by this new sort of wealth seemed anything but natural to them. Furthermore; the legions of tradesmen; farmers; and laborers who fought the revolution and were promised a new democratic republic were anathema to the elitism of the Federalists. With the Federalist defeat in 1800; the field was left to the Jeffersonians. But the Jeffersonians in Pennsylvania; once rid of the Federalists; found that they were anything but united under a single vision for the future of America.The most radical promoters of democracy to be found in Pennsylvania in 1800 were to be found in Philadelphia. Shankman fittingly calls them the Philadelphia Democrats. Whereas the Federalists had held a hierarchical vision for America; the Philadelphia Democrats were alarmed at the disparity they saw between the rich and poor. They perceived a powerful elite gaining unfair economic advantage thanks to their close (and corrupt) association with the power of government. Though the Federalists were defeated; problems persisted due to an institutional thwarting of the will of the majority. The governor could; and did; veto measures passed by the legislature. Judges set aside measures as unconstitutional. Philadelphia Democrats called for a constitutional convention to correct these limitations placed on democracy. At issue were the corrupt associations of the wealthy business men with government officials; and the accessibility to productive property. A true democracy would limit unfair advantages and promote broader access to productive property and thus enhance a sharing in the new nation's economic potential. Standing opposite the Philadelphia Democrats were the Quids. This group inherited the Federalist distrust of pure democracy and universal suffrage. They stood for the status quo and the protection of personal property. The Snyderites were the moderates who promoted more modest and gradual reform. In the end; the path selected was rapid economic development. Among the solutions enacted was a rapid expansion of banking so that credit was made available to small business owners and farmers. Protective tariffs and internal improvements were also favored to improve economic opportunity for all. These and similar measures were made to ensure that the rising tide of the American economy would truly lift all boats. The market place would be the bringer of prosperity that all could share in.The American experiment was set up to be an alternative to European style monarchy and oppression. Equality and democracy were supposed to result in some measure of egalitarian spreading of wealth; or what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "that happy mediocrity of condition." The extent to which one judges America to have achieved its aims will rely on the reader's political and economic predilections. What Shankman presents here is a special look into a time and place when the direction of the country was still very much in doubt. It sheds light on much that happened in America in the first half of the nineteenth century; and demonstrates that America's inability to deal fully with questions of democracy and equality at the time has left America today still wondering how issues of inequality might yet be addressed.Shankman makes mention of the American System; a school of thought that crystallized thanks in part to Pennsylvanians such as Mathew Carey. This school promoted protective tariffs; internal improvements; and central banking with which to capitalize rapid economic expansion. As time went on and the market failed to realize all of its egalitarian promises; the American System began to promote an educated work force and higher wages. (Anyone interested in this aspect of nineteenth century American history should read America's Protectionist Takeoff 1815-1914; by Michael Hudson.) Shankman entices us to consider the economic side of political economy; repeatedly referring to access to productive property and egalitarian fairness. It would seem; however; that direct consideration of these issues has constantly been diverted by purely business interests. (Hudson complains that the American System is neglected by history and economic departments in modern day academia.) And in a book like Crucible of American Democracy; like any history text; when discussion of economics comes into play; one has to take care to understand the bias of the author. To his credit; Shankman seems quite disciplined and objective in his presentation of the subject; and this makes Crucible of American Democracy most valuable from whatever direction the reader may approach it.17 of 18 people found the following review helpful. How what is came to be.By greg taylorThis book is a well-focused incursion into several ongoing debates in early American historiography. Anyone who has read academic history about that period in the last thirty years should be aware of the republicanism-liberalism debates as well as the arguments surrounding the development of capitalism in the early republic.Shankman's book focuses on Pennsylvania politics during the years of the Jefferson and Madison administrations as well as the decades immediately prior and after. Pennsylvania had the most advanced and diversified economy of any of the states. For that reason; Shankman believes that the arguments among the various factions of the Jeffersonian party ended up being of great consequence. Much of the rest of the country followed Pennsylvania's lead and the broad consensus that came out of Pennsylvania in regards to the meaning of democracy and the state's role in economic development became the national consensus for the first half of the nineteenth century.Shankman's first chapter is a superb exposition of the development of the opposition to Hamilton's economic policies and to Adam's assertion of national power in reaction to the Whiskey Rebellion and in the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts. His exposition is concise and very even handed. On the state level; three strands of Jeffersonians emerged: the Quids; the Snyderites and the Philadelphia Democrats. Shankman delineates their differences and traces those to differences in their geographical origins and social status.As long as they were a party of opposition these three variants were able to work together. With the election of Jefferson in 1800 their differences fractured their alliance.This is the meaning of Shankman's title. The "crucible of conflict" is practically a mantra throughout this book. The idea is that the political debates and electoral conflicts in Pennsylvania drove the Jeffersonian's thought in directions it would not otherwise have gone. In the end; they had to either give up some of their cherished ideals or be brushed aside in state politics as irrelevant.For example; one of the basic assumptions of the thought of the time was the idea of "the people". There was this sense that there was a common interest that united the whole populace. If no one started out from a position of too much relative wealth or political influence and if all were allowed to freely pursue their dreams then no major conflicts could develop among the people. If there was discord; it was due to distortions in the system; e.g.; the judges manipulating the judicial system in defiance of the majority (the more things change...) The problem that the Jeffersonians had to face was "the creative endeavors of certain citizens were causing inequality to grow among citizens" (p.168).The eventual solution to the issue of equality and economic development was to allow everyone an "untrammeled right to pursue his self-interest" (p.165).This development is played out in Shankman's telling of the 1805 governor's race. This chapter is another incisive exposition. Shankman is an excellent writer.One final but very important point. In his final chapter; Shankman positions his thesis in the ongoing debates that I mentioned at the beginning. He expounds on Merrill and Wilentz' point that it is easy to look back at this period and to see the development of a capitalist economy as being inevitable. They point out that while everyone back then embraced "commerce and commodity production" that that is not the same thing as capitalism (p.240). This is a common problem in historical writings. A wide open development is seen as having been almost inevitable. One of the real strengths of Shankman's book is that he reminds us just how wild and wooly in possibility this period was. Capitalism was not inevitable. We could have gone a different way. This is a superb telling of why we went the way we did.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Five StarsBy tom richterA must read!
