(Part 2) Best iraq war history books according to redditors
We found 58 Reddit comments discussing the best iraq war history books. We ranked the 26 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
Solid post, will try and over time rebutt some of your ideas. Quite a few are historically inaccurate and I guess you have been mislead on these otherwise verifiable areas. I hope you take this feedback as constructive and not confrontational. I will as always back up my claims with some solid secondary sources.
>I can only assume this because the Indian subcontinent is fairly large, and the ratio of british to Indian in India must have been ridiculous. Like 10000:1 (made up number).
It was worse. At no point in time did the population of native Brits exceed 1,50,000 (1) with the Indian population hovering around 250 Mn ~ 1850. However, it was not as the Indian mutiny showed as easy as ganging up together as 250 Mn and throwing out the Brits.
It is established that any insurgency needs 6% to 8% of the population joining it to become a success. This given the geographical (another inconsistency of yours) boundaries and size of India was a very difficult number to achieve BEFORE the advent of modern communications. (2)
The British also ruled in a very clever manner. They supplanted the existing caste system, replaced the Mughal emperors / Maratha emperors at the top with themselves and ruled via the kings and zamindars. The average Indian saw no change in the ruling dispensation and hence had no cause to complain. Again this was slowly changing and the resistance if you will achieved critical mass by the 1900's. Gandhi for all his political guile (and stupidity) harvested this wave. What the Brits did was, even to exploit, they let their kings and zamindars do all the exploitation. They levied taxes on these intermediaries and let them be once they paid said taxes. In the few areas under their own direct control like Bengal, they attempted land reforms which were disastrous (3) and these areas coincidentally became the vanguard of the freedom movement.
The point here is, you over simplify the whole Indians could have kicked out the Brits whenever if he had used violence. It wasn't ever as simple as that. The violence was also not long in the coming, and that was one of the greatest fears of the British. The lakhs of demobbed soldiers returning from WW2 rising up against the Raj.
What did the Raj in was not Gandhi or Bose but Hitler. Britain just did not have the resources to maintain the ever increasingly restive Indian colony. The Indian naval mutiny was an act, combined with the spectre of the recently defeated INA hovering over them that caused fear to the British rulers. (4). Interestingly the revolt was caused by more mundane issues such as delayed pay, slow demob process but it sure did fan the embers of nationalism and picked up speed because of nationalism.
This is where I find fault with your central thesis on Gandhi's method. In a way, we should be greatful that our colonisers were the Brits ( inspite of all the horrors they inflicted on us) and not say the Japanese or Germans who would have resorted to deadly force to any unrest. This is what if territory and I will end this line of reasoning here as it has no basis in historical reality. Suffice to say Indians as a whole are hard sold on the "Gandhi won us freedom" rhetoric that we usually fail to look at it objectively.
I will skip the stuff in between (in terms of the rebuttal) as they are mostly opinions and jump straight to,
>When we look at the Indian Subcontinent [IS], it becomes obvious that if we had start to divide this piece of land on religious and cultural fault-lines then this land can easily be divided into 50-odd countries. The diversity is simply overwhelming.
This is another idea we have been hard sold, India is so diverse, that we can never, and have in the past never been one or two entities.
Historically this is highly inaccurate.
We have had 2, 3 empires at any given point in time controlling the vast majority of the subcontinent. These (Mauryas, Cholas, Rashtrakutas, Pratihara Palas, Gurjaras etc etc) weren't a feudal replica of medieval Europe, but similar to the centrally run Chinese system. All these empires (each of which lasted for centuries) had a central administration system, central coinage, central bureaucracy and acted pretty much as one solid unit. (5) , (6), (7), (8), (9)
I am now (as it is more relevant here) going to jump forward a section and bring in your,
>This brings a wild conjecture in my head. Originally, like 3000 years ago, the religious fault-lines in Hinduism were clearly defined. These really were 100 different religions. People worshiped rudra, ram etc .... the list goes on and on and hated/despised each other for worship other gods.
Different kinds of people had different cultural practices. When population was scare, people were separated by long distances. One part of India practiced paganism, 100 kms away the other part practiced polytheism, some were monotheists, while down in far south people were following pantheism.
Now population spiked, and kingdoms had to be formed. Large scale conquering-and-killing followed just like any other part of the world (imagine Europe). Eventually the people of Indian Subcontinent realized what this azerbaijan-ian dude realized. That we are not separated by geographical barriers and we will wipe each-other out if we do not stop the killing and conquering.
To stop the perpetual war, the Indians came up with a bright idea. Lets stop demonizing each-other (followers of other gods), and respect the sacred texts/building of people from different culture/faith. Because if you don't respect them, they won't respect you, 10 years later will come with an army of war elephants and fuck your ass sideways.
This is highly incorrect and if you would read sources 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 (or even just 5 & 7) you will understand why.
Firstly Indian geography was as flat (relatively) as you suggest only in the Gangetic plains. For any medieval army to even cross the Dandakaranya (dense impenetrable forest) and the Vindhyas after that to mount an expedition in the south of India it was an arduous task. Keep in mind in ancient and medieval India, most of the land was a densely forested or swampy marsh land with massive amounts of malarial mosquitoes. It is not as easy as you postulate. It was still done, there were paths and valleys and roads which armies used, but it was not easy. Also you forget distance. The Pallava emperor, if he gathered his army in Mahabalipuram and had to sack Vengi, he had to march some 700 odd km's. Think about it in European terms, 700 Km's would get you from Berlin to Paris (or close).
Neelakanta Sastri in his history of south India suggests that yes, the south had a distinctively different culture and religion, but slow cultural movements from the north changed this into a more uniform mixture over centuries and resulted in a very syncretic mixture of the native pagans and the more recognised Hinduism (as we recognise it that is).
I will address more such historical fallacies and inaccuracies over time, but this will do for a start.
Sources.
2 The Long War - Insurgency, Counterinsurgency and Collapsing States by Mark Berger
edit - Sorry, I have no idea how to get the damn numbering AND bullets straight. Removing bullets.
Yo. I was Aco 1/508 from '04 (when we were 3/504 before the reflag) to 2010. Our battalion kicked major ass in Iraq ('05) and Afghanistan ('07-'08). That shit was forever ago so it makes sense there's no one left. Stories? We got those. Start with these from Afghanistan.
1/508 recaptures Musa Qala. Massive fight:
Into the Viper's Nest.
https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/29021
1/508 secures Sangin cause the Brits were getting their asses kicked:
https://maxwhittaker.photoshelter.com/gallery/Afghanistan/G00009jB.pDobdY0/
https://www.sofmag.com/the-battle-of-82-easting/
https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/3835
Fighting for Kajaki:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-taliban-missile-strike-chinook
https://valor.militarytimes.com/hero/3817
https://thefallen.militarytimes.com/army-sgt-charles-e-wyckoff-jr/2827251 Wyckoff's DSC is currently being looked at for MOH upgrade.
1SG Strickland is currently writing a book about this deployment. Hopefully it gets picked up. I'm pretty sure CSM Brasher was your company's 1SG for the deployment you're asking about (until he took an RPG to the chest, that is). He's an RTB CSM now.
You won't find much from this battalion's second deployment to Iraq (first in the 82nd) because what started out as a deployment to work under Marine command turned into a "dark" deployment working for TF 145 in the hunt for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It was pretty sick. ...But actually, now that I think about it, I think only Alpha and Charlie companies got assigned to the task force. I'm pretty sure your boys sat in Husaybah and didn't do much. Sorry. :D
Side note, what do people think about C Co's new female commander?
How about The One that Got Away by Chris Ryan. He was part of an SAS team that went into Iraq during the first Gulf War to take out scuds and gather intelligence. Unfortunately, it all went horribly wrong and they were comprimised early in the mission. Chris was separated from the rest of the team and had to escape on foot to the Syrian border - a journey of about 190 miles.
Or you could try Bravo Two Zero by Andy McNab. He was part of the same team, but was eventually captured and had to survive torture by the Iraqi army.
It is no secret that both Jalaal Talabani and Ahmed Karzai have been longtime CIA assets. They are now the leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan respectively. I can even quote sources for this,
http://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Inside-Story-Scandal-Selling/dp/0307346811
Read that book.
He has written books on the subjects.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0141015675
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814716865
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452284988
Enjoy, dear reader.
I am sorry to keep pushing HTS but this book is essentially a modern day version of what you are after if you want to avoid history. If memory serves right it is 100 pages and is what you want. Your subject is westerners and colonizers fighting a war, and why and how they do it is really nicely summarized and told. Anthropologists play a role... but that is because like in earlier times as I have outlined they have in some sense nearly always played some role since the definition of anthropology.
I will not respond any more as I have already given you an amazing paper in the likeness of any modern political anthropology paper. If I am missing something let me know, because it does not sound like you have been able to find "Guns Germs and Steel" and simply rip off its bibliography yet...
http://www.amazon.com/American-Counterinsurgency-Human-Science-Terrain/dp/0979405742