The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World

Smith takes the reader through a well-designed account of the history of war before moving into the current situation facing the commander and the warfighter. I found the focus on the work of Napoleon, Clausewitz and Bismarck revealing and it sets the tone for the next phase of the discussion, focussed on, for eample, the Boer War and the specifics of that conflict. The two World Wars are covered in just enough detail so as to keep the arguments going (appreciated!!) before showing how the Cold War (or rather confrontation) set the scene for our current dilemma. Smith is crisp in his accounts. He builds a clear picture of every stage of the development of conflict and confrontation from the tactical and strategic perspective. The book is essential reading if you want to comment on force design, if you are involved in mission effectiveness studies or even if you want to develop new ideas around doctrine and command and control in a complex environment. As an engineer and scientist involved in simulation based studies of new warfare I found this book supported my growth towards a more holistic view of concepts.

General Smith's insights - and especially his advocacy for today's nations to view their militaries' structure, training and leadership can come as a real shock to those of us who have had military careers & where trained during the Cold War. Smith, however, makes sense & can defend his positions clearly. Initially I was a little put off by the history lesson he uses to show the evolution of Industrial War, but I am a historian by training & understand he needed to walk those less informed through history so that when he begins to make his points, he has thoroughly prepared the ground. I would recommend reading this - but first to read "The Logic of Violence in Civil War" (Kalyvas). When paired together, these books can really bring insights regarding modern 'war among the people'.

Hindsight is always going to be more clear than trying to predict the future, and in this book where General Smith traces the history of war from the Napoleonic to the current age it is no surprise that he is far more clear and insightful looking backward than he is in looking forward.The major thesis of his book is that war has shifted from what he calls "War Between the People," typified by separate nation-states fighting till decisive victory on a distinct battlefield, to what he calls "War Amongst the People" which will feature conflict including non nation states, waged indefinitely and indecisively on an amorphous front that includes both physical lands and intangible ones such as the media.The book is very strong in several regards. First, General Smith's elucidation of Clausewitzian strategy, as well as providing the historical backdrop for when, how and why it was developied, is simply first rate. The biggest lessons drawn from Clausewitz that are still relevant today are that force must be applied to achieve some pre-determined purpose (hence the "utility of force," it is not merely the destruction of your opponent), and the concept of the trinity of government, military and the people. The best way to defeat an enemy is to break this trinity. In War Between the People this could be done conceptually more simply by flat out destroying the enemy military or their government, or perhaps more elegantly by dissolving the people's allegiance to the policies of their government and military, more effective against a democracy such as North Vietnamese efforts to reinforce and inflame the anti-war movement. Second the book's military history from Napoleon to the end of the Cold War is truly outstanding, worth the price of the book itself.Smith is certainly not alone in sensing a major shift in the type of wars we have found ourselves in for the past nearly two decades now, and in pointing out the intellectual bankruptcy of our "Revolution in Military Affairs," more a techno-advertisement than a strategic realignment of our military forces based on an understanding of our current world and the permanence of human nature. In his new War Amongst the People the Clausewitzian trinity of government, military and people still exists, clearly and distinctly for state actors, but in a much more diffused and maleable way for non state actors such as terrorists. Therefore breaking their trinity becomes a much more confusing and difficult thing to achieve, -but none the less necessary- and much of the military theory for fighting the wars of the past are no longer applicable.Unfortunately his prescriptions for how to fight our current and future wars, beyond the simple and now hopefully universally agreed upon maxim that your war must have a vision of peace you want to achieve by expending your blood and treasure, are complex and ultimately confusing. Due to being deployed to the Middle East and out of internet access for 6 months I have had to wait that long to write my review for this book, and can barely remember any of his concepts and suggestions for fighting and winning future wars, which doesn't bode well for someone trying to develop a new conceptual framework for our warriors and our society for facing the future. The biggest thing I do remember though is a much more coordinated effort needed between the military, the state department, aid groups, and especially the media. He also appears fatalistic that Wars Amongst the People are essentially intractable and will require a practically permanent peacekeeper presence like we have in the former Yugoslavia, where he commanded forces during the fighting, and developed and employed much of his thinking, and where his final chapters focus. (There is little direct application of this thinking to Iraq and Afghanistan.)The Utility of Force is an excellent work nonetheless, and highly recommended for people trying to understand the current state of the world and what we can actually do to protect ourselves. For counterpoint the works of Lt. Col. Ralph Peters are suggested too.

I have read countless books on military history, and combat tactics and this one really takes the cake for what it is intended for. Its written by a decorated general from the British military who has war experience as a commander during the first Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo and Northern Ireland. The author analyses modern warfare and explains how warfare has developed throughout history showing incredible insight into warfare throughout the ages. He explains how the total war model is obsolete today and how different tactics need to be employed and how they should be employed considering circumstances.An absolute recommendation for everyone interested in military history, combat tactics, warfare, and the use of intelligence in combat.

Pretty informative and it made me think through things from a new angle.The extrapolation goes too far in claiming that industrial warfare can't happen any more. Since WWI the introduction of WMD made such warfare increasingly difficult without a reliable consent to refrain from certain acts. It's uncertain this uncertainty of conduct will persist.Industrial warfare itself is the outgrow of limiting cultural consensus on the conduct of armed conflict, which in part was due to recognized cultural similarity as Christians within a sanctioned framework. The book falls short in looking far beyond the eurocentric bias in time into other cultural regions' traditional approaches. Turkey and Russia are examples for centuries of intersection between different mindsets on warfare. Just as an example: "The secret history of the Mongols" is a long read (propagandistic with plausible reflection of contemporary mindset and customs) on something that could be labeled a war of the people with the accumulation of a powerful following among the steppe dwellers. The concept is not new in itself, rather it's something that took a back seat while post-Napoleon a different paradigma dominated the minds and view of events by the most powerful political entities.

A book of the genre of " The Art of War" by Clauswitz

Insightful book by an intelligent war hero. We need people like him in parliament.

No problem with the book

Very good.