For the Common Defense

Although this book was painstakingly detailed in the events of our nation's military history and served as a solid introduction to all the conflicts we have faced over the centuries, the lack of detail regarding the events of the actual battles and military leadership at a lower level was slightly disappointing. It started off as a very interesting read, making all our wars very tangible and imaginable, but from World War I and on, it seemed to only consist of him listing the money we spent, how many troops/boats/bombs we had, what countries were upset with each other, and all the countless policies created. While this did give me an appreciation for just how much goes on behind the scenes during wars, it did not teach many applicable leadership lessons thus most of what I gleaned during my reading was from the first half. Among the major lessons I learned, leadership-wise, are the necessity of working with indigenous populations, of having strong logistical assets, and how absolutely critical it is to plan ahead.

Upon initially reaching what would become America, one of the greatest threats to our new colonies was the Native Americans, and continued to be for decades because of our failure to form any sort of diplomatic relations with them. Instead of making any attempt to understand their culture or work with them we immediately labeled them as savage and as our enemies, causing years of unnecessary hardship. Over the years we learned a great deal from them, even utilizing their own people against them in war, and could have benefited even more if relations had been good from the start. The US continued to use this principle in winning the colonial wars utilizing the aid of the native Americans and loosely in the civil war with the north utilizing all black units, and much later in Vietnam in training Montagnard strike forces. Not only does this save us resources, but also boosts our forces and takes a great portion of the burden off our shoulders.

The second major lesson I picked up on that seemed to be a recurring theme, whether as a result of the author's attention to it or in actuality, was the massive difference having a strong logistical backing makes on our ability to make war, and to lead on a lower level. While outfought and outnumbered, the Union basically won due to greater resources and a stronger economy. During our initial conflicts in Cuba our troops suffered due to our inability to transport enough resources south to Florida quick enough due to lack of infrastructure in the area of railroads as well as naval resources, resulting in severe supply shortages. Similarly, during both World Wars, our struggle to safely transport troops and supplies across the ocean wreaked havoc on our ability to make war. All in all it is a pretty simple concept, you can't efficiently wage war without the proper amount of weapons, ammunition, and other vital resources. I think just hearing time and time again about how

...