The war nerd

[kakagoegie 0]

A few months ago I discovered this website. Some fat bastard (he alwas calls himself fat) is talking about war/insurgency and some other military shizzshat. What I want to know if this guy is just saying something, or can I really believe what this guy is saying?

Anyone else read some of his articles and can confirm that I can believe what this guy is saying? Anyway, it's a very entertaining website, so if you don't know about it yet read some articles and tell me what you think about it.  

[Homefry 0]

I think he tries much to hard to get a laugh. Isn't my type of reading. He comes off as someone who just wants attention and admiration.

[FriketMonkey 0]

I don't think its a real reliable source.

[Jinef 2]

Kaka, you should know better.

This guy has an axe to grind and the 'military' commentary he offers is nothing more than a journalist could offer. I am afraid the really good military commentary is in books, which you need to buy.

[hellfish6 7]

I like him. He's a good writer and amusing.

[Ares1978 0]

Enjoy the writings, double-check all facts before quoting them and always take anecdotes with a pinch of salt.

[kakagoegie 0]

Kaka, you should know better.

This guy has an axe to grind and the 'military' commentary he offers is nothing more than a journalist could offer. I am afraid the really good military commentary is in books, which you need to buy.

Well, back to the library then I guess

Maybe someone could give me a few book tips, or is there a threat about that already?

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Well, i've been looking up books about past russian conflicts, this one seems good. It's about the afghan war. I haven't read it yet, but it is supposed to be guite good.

[Warden 0]

Found this book a few months ago good book about the Vietnam war.

[ebns72 0]

It may not be 100% reliable, but I just did a quick read on the Mexican Military history and it was quite interesting.

[crashdome 1]

He's doing nothing but restating things he's probably heard on TV himself and are probably questionable also. He's beyond a secondary source. Knobs like this are the reason I despise ...[EDIT] Lemme rephrase... he takes facts and opinions and mixes them together into what is usually a story-line filled with anecdotes or analogies to somehow persuade their point. Rather than simply state the facts meaningfully and let the reader form their own opinion.

These are books I had to read for classes and enjoyed very VERY much:

The Scientific Study of Peace and War - John A. Vasquez and Marie T. Henehan

Crises in U.S. Foriegn Policy - Micheal Hunt

'Vietnam': A Portrait of its People at War - David Chanoff and Doan Van Toai

Note that these are not military/war specific, but are the closest I have which I consider relating to military/war and of high quality.

The first is obviously an analysis of war (game theory etc.), the second has more of a historical account of the use of military by political officials (or non-use such as Cuban Missle Crisis). The second one is great because it reads like you are following the crises watching the political individuals involved and the decisions they had to make. If you read any of these, read this one. It is also the easier to digest of the three. Michael Hunt writes great books and I'm dying to get my hands on this one: http://www.amazon.com/gp....=283155

Also, David Chanoff's books about Vietnam are great and that last one is a superb account of various military individuals from the Veitcong and NVA - everything from Generals to farmers and artists forced into war. It really does a good job of showing the other side which is often seen as some kind of shadow or mysterious figure of evil. He shows it as more of a mis-guided and confused exhausted people struggling with national identity.

[Jinef 2]

How To Make War 4th Edition - James F. Dunninghan

Offers a basic summary of warfare in the 21rst century.

Got pretty much everything in it without being too outdated.

650 pages.

[Jinef 2]

Free Stuff by the same guy:

http://www.strategypage.com/

[crashdome 1]

Got pretty much everything in it without being too outdated.

At first I was real interested in both this book and the website you suggested but after reading excerpts and browsing the website I found it a good source for wargaming but severely biased and lacking in analytics.

Some of the facts in the news area suggest good headlines but found the info within them selectively stripped such as in this case:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/china/articles/20060719.aspx

I am not arguing against their headline but the first paragraph within the article is completely devoid of any relevance. It just serves as a negative emotion propellant. None of it is new news and none of it is relating to the Taiwanese issue. Coupled with that, the facts listed are standard beginnings of an arms race and you could compare the relation as US to Cuba. Not that I would because that would be forgetting about the other thousand 'facts' which make up these issues that are left out of this article.

[Jinef 2]

Yup, it's biased. Not sure about your opinion on the analysis though. I don't see much analysis.

The problem being that the people with the best resources to do all this research are in the USA. As quite often sensitive information which you could never get out of any sensible country pours out in yank-land. Politicians and military officers often leak little bits of stuff to further their agendas etc.

Also many Americans are quite incapable of looking at anything military without a huge dose of political strings attached. So as always take it with a pinch of salt.

The book how to make war offers a simple guide as to what people do on the battlefield, how they do it and the weapons they use. The author tries to be objective in most parts but his pro USA sentiment slips out in some areas.

Also, he only started the website. I don't know if he constantly adds to it or what. Maybe it is another guy with stronger political opinions.

[chipper 0]

This guy is funny.

[crashdome 1]

Yup, it's biased. Not sure about your opinion on the analysis though. I don't see much analysis.

I guess that was my point

Not much analysis going on... just selective facts (in the news area)

The other stuff on military units/doctrine/etc.. very informative. Just wish they would tone down the blatant racial slurs and such not what I would expect from a semi-professional information site.

On the other hand, I like the Wargames section!

[Jinef 2]

The unprofessionalism is part of the package with the US military.

They might not even be military, but civilians. Who would be even more unprofessional.

[FriketMonkey 0]

Well most of the war nerds facts are right. But his cause and consequence thinking sometimes wrong, or he distorts the facts so that they meet his opinion. This leads to incorrect conclusions. Certainly when he compares WW2 with today's wars, or his anekdotes about WW2 fronts are in my point of view way off.

Quote[/b] ]

I was born in 1965. Nam was over before I got my first pubes. I'd've gone. I'm not saying I'd've been a good soldier.

Well then, why isn't he serving in Iraq...?

Anyway, have a nice day all.

PS: Sorry for my English

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]

I was born in 1965. Nam was over before I got my first pubes. I'd've gone. I'm not saying I'd've been a good soldier.

Well then, why isn't he serving in Iraq...?

Well.. he is a fictional character for starters.

[FriketMonkey 0]

Tom Clancy fictional?

[EiZei 0]

Tom Clancy fictional?

Fictional as in a nom de guerre for some eXile writer, most likely Mark Ames.