Reviewing the reviewers
In the past I’ve praised the toughness of the book reviews in the Journal of Military History, so I want to note here a couple of lapses in the reviews running in the April issue.
In the past I’ve praised the toughness of the book reviews in the Journal of Military History, so I want to note here a couple of lapses in the reviews running in the April issue.
— “The army was in complete disarray following a destructive conflict in Vietnam,” (p. 615). How is that different from normal disarray? And aren’t most conflicts destructive? This is a problematically troubled sentence that raises some worried concerns!
— “improving life for the average Afghani,” (p. 627). We invaded their country more than 15 years ago, so by now our scholars should know the difference between the people (Afghans) and the currency (afghanis).
And an interesting line:
— “it is still a volume best read by experts,” (p. 626). This made me wonder what such a warning label would look like. “EVIDENCE OF PHD REQUIRED FOR PURCHASE. AFTER READING DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY OR MAKE MAJOR FINANCIAL DECISIONS.”
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons
Thomas E. Ricks is a former contributing editor to Foreign Policy. Twitter: @tomricks1
More from Foreign Policy

Chinese Hospitals Are Housing Another Deadly Outbreak
Authorities are covering up the spread of antibiotic-resistant pneumonia.

Henry Kissinger, Colossus on the World Stage
The late statesman was a master of realpolitik—whom some regarded as a war criminal.

The West’s False Choice in Ukraine
The crossroads is not between war and compromise, but between victory and defeat.

The Masterminds
Washington wants to get tough on China, and the leaders of the House China Committee are in the driver’s seat.