Armed Conflict: The Lessons of Modern Warfare

An Army Captain stationed at Fort Knox, Steed makes a concise and cogent argument for larger and simpler armed forces. He begins by arguing that U.S. combat power is dangerously thin on the ground and the country's advanced weapons are like a Ferrari in a bad neighborhood--one must spend more time protecting them than using them. He then cites five modern battles to prove his point, one each from Korea, Vietnam, the Falklands, the Gulf War and Somalia. In the Falklands, the British won by superior small-unit training, while in the Gulf War, U.S. armored cavalry beat an Iraqi army that gave away every possible advantage including terrain. In the other three actions, the U.S. forces inflicted more damage than they received--but not more damage than the opponent could accept. The author goes on to advocate not only more numerous ground forces with better training and better small-unit leaders, but a basic all-purpose fighting vehicle as versatile as the World War II Sherman tank. This proposition will make some readers cringe, as will Steed's attacks on the media, but the whole is a reasonable presentation of a thesis that is not new, but is still deserving of serious consideration by military professionals and concerned civilians. Maps and illustrations not seen by PW.