Bottom-up and top-down military history
It's coincidence that I read these books at the same time: I picked up The Next Hundred Years on Bbro's vehement suggestion at Father's Day and not just bc everyone else in my family was reading it. It so happens that TWH had me read a random page of The War Nerd when I saw her a few weeks later.
And she was right, of course. It only takes one page to see if the book might suit, bc every page is filled with the most un-PC language you could possibly imagine, to describe mostly horrible conflicts. It's a series of columns covering most of the globe, telling a little history of the people who fight or fought there. So there's a half dozen columns on various African countries, explaining why they're chopping each other's hands etc. off; an article on India vs. Pakistan mocking that country; one or two articles on why France doesn't deserve to be mocked. I loved the survey quality of it, bc while I'm reasonably well-educated, there's lots of corners of the world I just don't know much about. He also randomly throws out little comments, like farmers always beating hunters bc their way of life supports a higher population density or comparing fertile river valleys to Australia in Risk. Best of all, while he's clearly a military enthusiast, it was wonderful to hear a foreign policy perspective from a military-clued person who is NOT a neocon. After his comments, I want to read more about the battle of Yorktown. I was also particularly fascinated by the "Green March," in which 350K Moroccan civilians (including women and children) waved flags and walk into Spanish sahara - and took it over. This seems to be the way many wars are going, which the War Nerd bemoans. Loudly. For example, here is his exuberant column on Egypt, in which he's all but wanking to Al Jazeera. If you can get past his enthusiasm for bloodshed, The War Nerd is entertaining and you might learn a thing or two.
In contrast, The Next Hundred Years is a very serious tome by someone who, even without reading his bio, I knew his expertise was the Cold War. His premise is that countries operate in their self-interest such that individual leaders don't matter. In many ways, it's a companion to Guns, Germs, & Steel, in that he believes geography is destiny: countries that have been successful bc they had good river systems and few neighbors will continue to do so. USA!USA!
He spends several chapters looking at trends you've read about elsewhere: feminism & modernity, the Fourth Turning, etc. I've done some demographic research and yet I hadn't thought through how modernity makes feminism inevitable. His incisive example is that having 10 children was a necessity in the 18th century; possible in the 19th century; and ostentatious in the 21st century bc education is expensive: we no longer put 6 year olds to work. (Sorry, lawnrrd.) If women are living longer and no longer spending most of their life pregnant, they might as well study and become productive; any society that doesn't allow its women to do that will fall further and further behind.
He also argues that Russia is aware they are on the cusp of their last chance as a credible military threat, thanks to their demographic problems, so they will stir up trouble in the next two decades. I may remember the fall of the Berlin Wall, but somehow I missed learning anything about Russia's geographic problems. Friedman lays out why it is critical to Russia's self-interest to keep the Baltics and the Carpathians in its sphere of influence, or its grip on the Caucasuses becomes a pinch-hold. No wonder why they flipped out at the Orange and Rose Revolutions.
Speaking of Russia, Friedman says that just as de Tocqueville predicted the US' rise in the twentieth century, Nietzsche predicted the same for Russia: does anyone know what the hell he is talking about? I looked on the Intarwebs and consulted my favorite master of philosophy, with no luck.
I didn't really understand Friedman's argument about why he doesn't care about GW2. Part of his argument is that if you look at the 20th century, every 20 years, no one believed what would happen 20 years later: Queen Victoria never imagined a war with Germany that would destroy the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires; people in 1980 could never have imagined the fall of the Berlin Wall. I think he's arguing that our goal was to keep an international caliphate from arising; now that we've done that, we'll find some way to slink home, mission accomplished. Not dissimilarly, Friedman argues that China and Japan are both more economically dependent on the US than we are on them, which is uncomfortable. Unfortunately for China, Friedman believes that the rich coast vs. poor countryside (read: blue state vs. red) problem will keep China from apotheosis.
This is all setup for Friedman's truly out-on-a-limb forecast that the next World War will be US-Poland vs. Japan-Turkey-maybe Germany. He argues that Poland will become a major player as it was a few centuries ago, thanks to tech transfers from the US during our next tiff with Russia. (Basically, Germany can't hold the line bc all of Europe will lose its shit if Germany re-arms in a big way, so we'll have to support Poland.) Turkey resumes its regional influence - think Ottoman Empire and also the other largest Muslim countries are basket cases. It's basically WW2, fought with moon rocks and solar array-powered mecha suits.
He ends the book with a discussion of how the current immigration wave to the US is different bc the southwestern US is a borderland like Alsace-Lorraine, so the immigrants aren't integrating like when they came from over the ocean. Have you ever heard (anywhere, ever) of legislators in two governments, like if we had Mexican-American congresscritters serving in both Mexico City and Washington. (Split their time! They do less damage that way!)
I am, needless to say, dubious, but I learned a lot from reading his case. And, let's face it, I've read Age of Sail IN SPACE! and the Civil War with aliens and mecha fiction: truth is even more interesting than fiction.
And she was right, of course. It only takes one page to see if the book might suit, bc every page is filled with the most un-PC language you could possibly imagine, to describe mostly horrible conflicts. It's a series of columns covering most of the globe, telling a little history of the people who fight or fought there. So there's a half dozen columns on various African countries, explaining why they're chopping each other's hands etc. off; an article on India vs. Pakistan mocking that country; one or two articles on why France doesn't deserve to be mocked. I loved the survey quality of it, bc while I'm reasonably well-educated, there's lots of corners of the world I just don't know much about. He also randomly throws out little comments, like farmers always beating hunters bc their way of life supports a higher population density or comparing fertile river valleys to Australia in Risk. Best of all, while he's clearly a military enthusiast, it was wonderful to hear a foreign policy perspective from a military-clued person who is NOT a neocon. After his comments, I want to read more about the battle of Yorktown. I was also particularly fascinated by the "Green March," in which 350K Moroccan civilians (including women and children) waved flags and walk into Spanish sahara - and took it over. This seems to be the way many wars are going, which the War Nerd bemoans. Loudly. For example, here is his exuberant column on Egypt, in which he's all but wanking to Al Jazeera. If you can get past his enthusiasm for bloodshed, The War Nerd is entertaining and you might learn a thing or two.
In contrast, The Next Hundred Years is a very serious tome by someone who, even without reading his bio, I knew his expertise was the Cold War. His premise is that countries operate in their self-interest such that individual leaders don't matter. In many ways, it's a companion to Guns, Germs, & Steel, in that he believes geography is destiny: countries that have been successful bc they had good river systems and few neighbors will continue to do so. USA!USA!
He spends several chapters looking at trends you've read about elsewhere: feminism & modernity, the Fourth Turning, etc. I've done some demographic research and yet I hadn't thought through how modernity makes feminism inevitable. His incisive example is that having 10 children was a necessity in the 18th century; possible in the 19th century; and ostentatious in the 21st century bc education is expensive: we no longer put 6 year olds to work. (Sorry, lawnrrd.) If women are living longer and no longer spending most of their life pregnant, they might as well study and become productive; any society that doesn't allow its women to do that will fall further and further behind.
He also argues that Russia is aware they are on the cusp of their last chance as a credible military threat, thanks to their demographic problems, so they will stir up trouble in the next two decades. I may remember the fall of the Berlin Wall, but somehow I missed learning anything about Russia's geographic problems. Friedman lays out why it is critical to Russia's self-interest to keep the Baltics and the Carpathians in its sphere of influence, or its grip on the Caucasuses becomes a pinch-hold. No wonder why they flipped out at the Orange and Rose Revolutions.
Speaking of Russia, Friedman says that just as de Tocqueville predicted the US' rise in the twentieth century, Nietzsche predicted the same for Russia: does anyone know what the hell he is talking about? I looked on the Intarwebs and consulted my favorite master of philosophy, with no luck.
I didn't really understand Friedman's argument about why he doesn't care about GW2. Part of his argument is that if you look at the 20th century, every 20 years, no one believed what would happen 20 years later: Queen Victoria never imagined a war with Germany that would destroy the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires; people in 1980 could never have imagined the fall of the Berlin Wall. I think he's arguing that our goal was to keep an international caliphate from arising; now that we've done that, we'll find some way to slink home, mission accomplished. Not dissimilarly, Friedman argues that China and Japan are both more economically dependent on the US than we are on them, which is uncomfortable. Unfortunately for China, Friedman believes that the rich coast vs. poor countryside (read: blue state vs. red) problem will keep China from apotheosis.
This is all setup for Friedman's truly out-on-a-limb forecast that the next World War will be US-Poland vs. Japan-Turkey-maybe Germany. He argues that Poland will become a major player as it was a few centuries ago, thanks to tech transfers from the US during our next tiff with Russia. (Basically, Germany can't hold the line bc all of Europe will lose its shit if Germany re-arms in a big way, so we'll have to support Poland.) Turkey resumes its regional influence - think Ottoman Empire and also the other largest Muslim countries are basket cases. It's basically WW2, fought with moon rocks and solar array-powered mecha suits.
He ends the book with a discussion of how the current immigration wave to the US is different bc the southwestern US is a borderland like Alsace-Lorraine, so the immigrants aren't integrating like when they came from over the ocean. Have you ever heard (anywhere, ever) of legislators in two governments, like if we had Mexican-American congresscritters serving in both Mexico City and Washington. (Split their time! They do less damage that way!)
I am, needless to say, dubious, but I learned a lot from reading his case. And, let's face it, I've read Age of Sail IN SPACE! and the Civil War with aliens and mecha fiction: truth is even more interesting than fiction.