Chasing Ghosts: Unconventional Warfare in American History Book

Definitely worth the investment of time.

While this title began with a very promising start, it devolved with an increasing lack of fact and an increase in unsubstantiated opinion. Additionally there is a suspicious odor of noxious anti-Semitism which stains the pages. Hammes increasingly becomes:

Anti- technology
Anti- Israeli
Anti-Reality
Anti -Logic

Though some of his insights are remarkable and straight to the point there tends to be a strong undercurrent of dissatisfaction and pessimism. The reader ends up questioning whether or not some personal disappointment (passed over for a Generals star perhaps) is not contributing to the acerbic barbs in the text. These comments (pp. 282-283 et al) accompanied by his calls for culling field grade officers might sound to some readers suspiciously like sour grapes.

There is an insistence upon decentralization of the military decision making process and an emphasis upon allowing initiative and discretion at the lower level echelons. This certainly makes sense, but only up to a point. Such a move would require great systematic changes within the armed forces and I personally an uncertain if such a move could even be accomplished in the long run. To Hammes' credit he does suggest greater tactical and educational formation of lower level leaders, which would certainly be a pre-requisite. He also is a strong advocate of reality-based training (RBT) which he endows with the most unfortunate title of "free-play exercises." Also The author wants to do away with any type of quality control be what he refers to as "so-called experts." Such a drastic move would be an error in my opinion. He does make a sound point however, when speaking on experts, checking on experts ad infinitum.

While he makes an excellent point upon the overreliance upon technological expertise at the expense of human tactical prowess, he tends to go a bit to far. His recommendations tend to entirely overlook and brush aside the possibility of a more traditional nation state level conflict.

Since the book begins with very sound, balanced and logical conclusions the excess displayed later becomes even more marked. Additionally the virulent undercurrent reduced the legitimacy of the narrative being pushed forth. I gave the book 4 stars, simply because much of the material is definitely thought provoking and insightful when filtered out from the personal rhetoric.

Concerning the Palestinian terrorist situation, Hammes provides over-simplistic and largely apologist based explanations, which have little credence and relevance to the actual situation on the ground. His statistical comparison of populations between Israel the Palestinians and the US, for instance, is biased as is much of his thinking.

While certain sections such as that on technology and insurgency are well-presented and based on factual observations, others, such as the Intifada segments, lack proper insight and understanding of the reality. Attributing insurgent warfare to Mao-Tse-Tung is also somewhat of a gross simplification, given that this form of warfare has always existed. Mao did, perfect the strategy, however,as Hammes so rightfully points out, and set the stage for the current spate of 4GW conflicts.

Conclusion: Certainly worth reading BUT, with a caveat; It requires keen awareness for author bias and a balanced view of reality in both military strategy and international affairs