In the wake of the 2004 election; pundits were shocked at exit polling that showed that 22% of voters thought 'moral values' was the most important issue at stake. People on both sides of the political divide believed this was the key to victory for George W. Bush; who professes a deep and abiding faith in God. While some fervent Bush supporters see him as a man chosen by God for the White House; opponents see his overt commitment to Christianity as a dangerous and unprecedented bridging of the gap between church and state.In fact; Gary Scott Smith shows; none of this is new. Religion has been a major part of the presidency since George Washington's first inaugural address. Despite the mounting interest in the role of religion in American public life; we actually know remarkably little about the faith of our presidents. Was Thomas Jefferson an atheist; as his political opponents charged? What role did Lincoln's religious views play in his handling of slavery and the Civil War? How did born-again Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter lose the support of many evangelicals? Was George W. Bush; as his critics often claimed; a captive of the religious right? In this fascinating book; Smith answers these questions and many more. He takes a sweeping look at the role religion has played in presidential politics and policies. Drawing on extensive archival research; Smith paints compelling portraits of the religious lives and presidencies of eleven chief executives for whom religion was particularly important. Faith and the Presidency meticulously examines what each of its subjects believed and how those beliefs shaped their presidencies and; in turn; the course of our history.
#76611 in Books Nolan Cathal 2017-02-01Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 6.60 x 1.90 x 9.40l; .0 #File Name: 0195383788728 pagesThe Allure of Battle A History of How Wars Have Been Won and Lost
Review
31 of 31 people found the following review helpful. A Military History Tour de ForceBy Mark EpiskoposProfessor Nolan seeks to dispel the myth of the decisive battle; lent credence by such major military histories as Fuller’s aptly named Decisive Battles of the Western World. Nolan’s thesis also pits him against the grain of a popular culture captivated by the romantic appeal of epic battlefield clashes between genius commanders at the head of vast armies. Of the many functions this book fulfills; it must be noted that this is not a treatise on military theory. Rather; the author pursues an empirical analysis of pivotal military moments from the ancient world through the Second World War. With an comprehensive tableau of case studies from the timeless ranks of Hannibal at Cannae and Manstein at Kiev; Nolan forcefully argues that the spectacular battlefield victories of history were not at all decisive in their respectives wars. Nolan jettisons the appeal of valor and tactical genius in favor of a somewhat chastened; but much more accurate world of wars decided by logistics; attrition; technology; and balance of power politics. While the exploits of Hannibal and Napoleon figure less prominently into this narrative; it arouses a newfound respect for the temperate; less dramatic strategies of Scipio and Wellington. Moreover; it cuts past the undue weight some military thinkers have placed on aggression and to reaffirm the primacy of the defense throughout history (a point with which even Clausewitz himself does not argue). As illustrated by the author’s account of Operation Barbarossa; the offensive belligerent must actively stake out an advantageous position in the face of inevitable friction while the defender must simply hold on long enough for the strength of the attack to be superseded by the strength of the defense. The empirical record might invite the speculation that even an aggressive war is best initiated from a defensive position.Nolan’s landmark study is an expertly written and rather humbling contemporary reminder of a lesson at least as old as Sun Tzu; perhaps most starkly illustrated in military affairs but true of all human action: no amount of tactical success can dissuade an insurmountable strategic deficit.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Not a bad book; overallBy francisdesalesNot a bad book; overall. But it gets tiring how the author constantly repeats "big battles don't mean much" while describing how they do in many cases. I suppose in his mind; a big battle isn't a game-changer unless it brings everlasting peace. Apparently; Austerlitz was nothing but a tactical victory because Napoleon started another war later. I fail to see how such a decisive battle becomes indecisive because a nation decides to go to war in the future. A more magnanimous Napoleon could have ended it all right there - his thirst for power; not lack of battles being decisive enough - was the problem. A better diplomatic solution would have made Austerlitz truly decisive; but that is not the fault of the desire/allure to come to a decisive battle. Apparently; it is difficult to stop once the ball gets rolling...The author himself admits this after discussing Austerlitz: "Yet his (napoleon's) refusal to consult or compromise did not secure decisive military victories with lasting peace terms. It brought only enmity". This seems to defeat the idea that decisive battles could quickly and decisively change matters. A better political settlement that did not cause such enmity with Austria would have secured the results of the decisive battlefield victory. It makes the entire thesis sound hollow. One could also write a book and say "if only the politicians didn't screw things up that the military won on the field..."Some of the history becomes odd opinion; such as "Britain sought to appease him (napoleon) repeatedly from 1801..." I'm trying to remember when that actually was the case; as England stubbornly refused to even negotiate with Napoleon; sending diplomats back to France. While he grudgingly admits that Frederick II and Napoleon were decent generals; they apparently failed the main test of military leaders; which would be; supposedly; granting "peace in our times..."0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Fast Tour to HellBy RCHEVQuick and totally fascinating tour through European military history--the writer tends to belabor the "it ain't the decisive battles; stupid;" point of view--and; as with much non-fiction writing these days; it's a bit padded around the edges...but; on the whole; a worthwhile read; if you're interested in the sorry history of mankind's insatiable desire to kill one another in increasingly efficient ways.
