Donald M. Snow invites readers to consider what criteria should be evaluated when considering whether the United States should engage in military action across the globe: when its vital interests are at stake and when the endeavor can reasonably be considered feasible, what Snow refers to as the "IF factor." It is hard to justify promoting an application of American military force to a situation where its use will not succeed or where US interests are not clearly vital, but, Snow argues, that is exactly what has happened frequently since Vietnam. The book is organized into three sections, examining a historical overview of how the United States became involved in intervening in asymmetrical warfare, the problem of internal war in the developing world, and future American military involvement, particularly in conflicts in the Global South and Ukraine.

Americans love war. We’ve never run from a fight. Our triumphs from the American Revolution to World War II define who we are as a nation and a people. Americans hate war. Our leaders rush us into conflicts without knowing the facts or understanding the consequences. Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq and Afghanistan define who we are as a nation and a people. How We Fight explores the extraordinary double-mindedness with which Americans approach war and articulates the opposing perspectives that have governed our responses throughout history: the “crusade” tradition, or our love of grand quests to defend democratic values and overthrow tyrants; and the “quagmire” tradition, or our resistance to the work of nation-building and its inevitable cost in dollars and American lives. How can one nation be so split? Studying conflicts from the Civil War to the present, Dominic Tierney uncovers the secret history of American foreign policy and provides a frank and insightful look at how Americans respond to the ultimate challenge. And he shows how U.S. military ventures can succeed. His innovative model for tackling the challenges of modern war suggests the possibility of enduring victory in Afghanistan and elsewhere by rediscovering a lost American warrior tradition.

The first comprehensive treatment of how the United States has handled the final stages of its conflicts-from World War I to Iraq-spoiled repeatedly by leaders' failures to plan clearly for what to do when the guns fall silent. Concerned with not repeating past errors, our leaders miscalculate and prolong the conflict or invite unwelcome results. In his penetrating analysis of past, present, and future wars, Rose suggests how to break this cycle.

Acclaimed New York Times journalist and author Chris Hedges offers a critical -- and fascinating -- lesson in the dangerous realities of our age: a stark look at the effects of war on combatants. Utterly lacking in rhetoric or dogma, this manual relies instead on bare fact, frank description, and a spare question-and-answer format. Hedges allows U.S. military documentation of the brutalizing physical and psychological consequences of combat to speak for itself. Hedges poses dozens of questions that young soldiers might ask about combat, and then answers them by quoting from medical and psychological studies. • What are my chances of being wounded or killed if we go to war? • What does it feel like to get shot? • What do artillery shells do to you? • What is the most painful way to get wounded? • Will I be afraid? • What could happen to me in a nuclear attack? • What does it feel like to kill someone? • Can I withstand torture? • What are the long-term consequences of combat stress? • What will happen to my body after I die? This profound and devastating portrayal of the horrors to which we subject our armed forces stands as a ringing indictment of the glorification of war and the concealment of its barbarity.

The Persian Gulf conflict was the first major combat test for U.S. military forces since the nation ended conscription two decades ago. As hundreds of thousands of American troops were dispatched to the Middle East, the nation realized, seemingly for the first time, that the composition of its armed forces was far removed from any that the nation had previously sent to war. The deployment of unprecedented proportions of minorities and women and the prominent role of reserves and national guard troops aroused considerable interest, widespread debate, and some worry. The prospect that African Americans could bear a disproportionate share of military casualties generated a socially diverse debate that threatened to reopen old racial scars; the reality that American women were exposed to perils from which, by long and deep tradition, they had previously been shielded inspired calls for them to be admitted to combat specialties; and controversy surrounding the readiness of the Army's combat reserves led to an internecine struggle over the future shape of the U.S. Army. In this book, Martin Binkin addresses each of these issues in order to provide a better understanding of the composition of America's fighting forces, to prompt an assessment of attitudes toward who should fight in future wars, and to delineate the choices for influencing the social distribution of peril. Binkin argues that the time for public involvement is now, while the memories of the Persian Gulf conflict are still reasonably fresh and while a fundamental rethinking of the post-cold war military is under way.

How three key figures in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran built ruthless irregular warfare campaigns that are eroding American power. In Three Dangerous Men, defense expert Seth Jones argues that the US is woefully unprepared for the future of global competition. While America has focused on building fighter jets, missiles, and conventional warfighting capabilities, its three principal rivals—Russia, Iran, and China—have increasingly adopted irregular warfare: cyber attacks, the use of proxy forces, propaganda, espionage, and disinformation to undermine American power. Jones profiles three pioneers of irregular warfare in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran who adapted American techniques and made huge gains without waging traditional warfare: Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov; the deceased Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani; and vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission Zhang Youxia. Each has spent his career studying American power and devised techniques to avoid a conventional or nuclear war with the US. Gerasimov helped oversee a resurgence of Russian irregular warfare, which included attempts to undermine the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections and the SolarWinds cyber attack. Soleimani was so effective in expanding Iranian power in the Middle East that Washington targeted him for assassination. Zhang Youxia presents the most alarming challenge because China has more power and potential at its disposal. Drawing on interviews with dozens of US military, diplomatic, and intelligence officials, as well as hundreds of documents translated from Russian, Farsi, and Mandarin, Jones shows how America’s rivals have bloodied its reputation and seized territory worldwide. Instead of standing up to autocratic regimes, Jones demonstrates that the United States has largely abandoned the kind of information, special operations, intelligence, and economic and diplomatic action that helped win the Cold War. In a powerful conclusion, Jones details the key steps the United States must take to alter how it thinks about—and engages in—competition before it is too late.