But I picked up Bernard Lewis's THE MUSLIM DISCOVERY OF EUROPE over the lunch hour. I was torn as to which one of Lewis's books to pick up. For the record, he is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University [Emeritus]. This book has been translated into numerous languages including Turkish, Persian, Indonesian and other languages of the Islamic World. The dedication page lists several Arabic names, who I'm presuming are fellow scholars and colleagues.To whet your appetite [for those who are so inclined], I quote Bernard Lewis quoting Samuel Johnson in 1733:"A generous and elevated mind is distinguished by nothing more certainly than an eminent degree of curiousity;nor is that curiousity ever more agreeably and usefully employed, than in examining the laws and customs offoreign countries".Let us hope.

"Homage to you, O ye Lords of Kau, ye who are without sin, and who live for the endless and infinite aeons of time which make up eternity. I have opened up a way for myself to you. I have become a spirit in my forms, I have gotten the mastery over my words of magical power, and I am adjudged a spirit; therefore deliver ye me from the Crocodile which liveth in this Country of Truth."Hamilton the Crocodile MP

>Hamilton the Crocodile I would change my avatar, but Steven Irwin would object.

For those looking to round out their hemorraghing book shelfs in Hamiltonian style:Just as Bernard Lewis's work deserves to be read by a wider western audience,so does Military History. Without a concise summary of military history, then historyitself, the empiricism of and for the deceased, is a closed book to Western eyes.In that vein, one man has been named the best military historian of our generation,by the master of the technothriller, Tom Clancy -- John Keegan. Check out his outstandingCASSELL'S HISTORY OF series which has been reissued in sturdy paperbacks. I finished Victor Davis Hanson's THE WARS OF THE ANCIENT GREEKS. It was excellent.

From the Historytoday.com website:QuoteKeegan is no peacenik, and he claims that the Gulf War, for example, was a classic `Just War' as defined by Grotius. But he has no love of war or illusions about its nature. Every day of his life, he says, he wrestles with the further paradox that, among those who have chosen to confront and if necessary commit the most appallingly inhumane actions, he has encountered some of the most charming, civilised and high-minded people one could ever hope to meet. Nobody, says Keegan, is more disgusted by the horror of war than the generals who, in the last resort, are called upon to fight it. It was a point he reiterated at the culmination of his 1998 Reith Lectures, War and Our World.

--- Deleted ---

In 1985, the Village Voice ran a very influential cover story called "War Wimps." It contrasted the voting records of Congressmen who had fought in wars with those who had avoided military service. Those who had never been to war were significantly more likely to advocate war, and even more significantly likely to advocate aggressive policies that increased the probability of war. The article singled out six of the most aggressive war advocates, all of whom had used connections or tricks to escape military service. It seems wrong to vote to send other people to war if you refuse to go yourself.In modern times, I think professional military officers have generally been less anxious to go to war than politicians and the general public. The military, of course, always wants to spend lots of money to prepare for war, and that creates a lot of the forces that eventually cause wars.Oddly enough, the phrase War Wimps entered the general language but changed its meaning entirely. Now it is just an insulting term for anyone who likes peace.

"It seems wrong to vote to send other people to war if you refuse to go yourself."What could possibly be your logic on this one? First of all, any article in the Village Voice in 1985 is a bunch of anti-Reagan nonsense, with paths to conclusions that would make any honest statistician laugh. In reality, rather than doing a "study," they probably noticed some odd anecdote involving the average age of Senators, the Vietnam War, and some other demographic oddity, and then cast the oddity which produced their study, as a study which produced their oddity. Like I'm sure if I noticed 5 red cars driving by in five minutes, I could then design a five-minute "study" which, if you assumed I chose the length of the study at random, would suggest the five red cars are correlated to actual car colors, rather than to my pre-ordained conclusion. What "war" were they talking about going to, versus voting on? Do they define "refuse" as a condition of the heart, or your means to follow your heart, and your success? Please do not cite nonsense left-wing propaganda, and then cloth it in the legitimacy of statistical discovery by saying "Those who... were more likely to..." There is one thing that is certain, and that is that I cannot, by my own dodging out of a war today or not, change the morality of some future military action. If a war is correct, it is correct for me to vote for it, whether I moved to Canada in 1964, ate a lollipop in 1965, or have orange hair. And another thing, this probably has more to do with the involuntary draft, which a lot of people would say is never right, even if war is sometimes right. Does this mean my Grandma should never support a war? Besides, who is to say that people who have been bombed and shot at and scared to death as youths, or who volunteered for it, or any other specific set of self-selected experiences, are better or worse at weighing the costs and benefits of military action?"The military, of course, always wants to spend lots of money to prepare for war, and that creates a lot of the forces that eventually cause wars."Huh? Please give a concrete example of how, for instance, Congress being sold by a General, on the idea to appropriate money for a new aircraft carrier, increases the likelihood that someone will attack us, or that we will have to attack someone else? The forces that cause wars are land. If somebody else has it, and you think you can get it, you go to war."I think professional military officers have generally been less anxious to go to war than politicians and the general public."Really? But my college professor told me they were all crazies who actually wanted to die.MP

>In modern times, I think professional military officers have generally been less anxious to go to war than politicians and >the general public. A couple of nuances here that you may find intriguing.1) I've read things by a couple of military writers that even though the stereotype Republicans - war mongers; Democrats - peaceniks is out the window, the Republicans [at least some of them] have a strange type of cognitive dissonance when it comes to war. They like the idea of air war, surgical strikes and technological solutions to war. Yet, mention massive ground troops, infantry and marine invasion and protracted battle and things change.Ground troops, infantry and armored calvary are harder to swallow when you consider yourself "non-Imperialist". When the Romans invaded after they supplanted the Greeks, it was understood that war and occupation and subjugation were part of the package. So, the concept of "limited warfare" simply didn't exist. War was all or nothing.[To those who think we in the 20th century are the only ones to agonize about civilian audit of the military, you are mistaken. Pre Alexander, Generals in Greece who bragged about military victory, as if they're generalship caused it, were subject to severe censure and sometimes execution]They have a point. In many ways the Gulf/Iraqui air war reinforced that. Hence, 3 dimensional war history does not create 2 dimensional war mongers -- if anything, it tempers the rhetoric.2) Civilian audit/control of the military in the west? Who runs the war. The surprising answer from Churchill, based upon a book by [bear with me I'm digging up the book & author....] is the civilians, never the unfettered military alone.

>In 1985, the Village Voice ran a very influential cover story called "War Wimps."One of the journalists in attendance at Keegan's lecture was a left wing journalist from the leftwing British Guardian newspaper. She was there to trash the speech in an editorial. Instead, shewas riveted by what Keegan had to say.

It's true that the old Voice ran a lot of crazy stuff (although almost always fun to read), but I stand by War Wimps. It was well argued with solid facts and it carried the day among the third of people not unalterably convinced.It wasn't a criticism of war, it was a criticism of Congress. Regardless of whether a war was wrong or right, it would be shameful to have it declared by people who thought it was worth any price in human life, except their own lives. Moreover, the article argued convincingly that these politicians supported war because they had poor records of their own. Hawkish rhetoric gained them the support of people who would not otherwise vote for a draft dodger. It is shameful to wage a war in an attempt to prove the courage of the people who declare it.Looking at things the other way, it would be nice if the people who voted for the war were personally willing to fight it, and had personal experience of the cost.I believe that excessive military spending creates forces that can lead to war. Countries without standing armies do not initiate wars. Countries with expensive standing armies have strong lobbies to support war, including military suppliers. Moreover, one country's arming is the universal excuse for other countries to arm. Pretty soon someone figures out it would be cheaper to have a war than keep spending increasing sums to stay ahead of the other side. Another problem is the high military spending means high taxes and low social services. This leads to dissatisfied citizens and authoritarian governments. These are the kinds of governments that tend to start wars.There is another side. Zero military spending tempts other people to attack you. So a certain amount of defense spending is prudent.

Digging up book....Eliot Cohen, Supreme Command [Civilian command vs Military command of the military]