Recently, strategists and the social scientists started asking questions that concerned the nature of the America’s technical culture. However, few have discovered the study of strategy being a strategic culture of America and therefore, should be expected to be sharing its parochialism.
Big attention to moderate democratic roots of the America’s technical culture, revealing certain characteristics which are tough to the military reforms as contemplated. As a commander in the U.S Army, Lt. Colonel Kindsvatter offered a very phenomenological history of minds and hearts of the ground troops in Army by the use of broad spectrum of unprinted and printed sources from subtitles eras.
Soldiers at the time had to visualize images of war in order to memorize war tactics.
However, despite of the military training, they did not have adequate preparation for modern battlefield which included ruthless physical atmosphere and intense emotional trauma; there was typical development from the initial confusion being caused by the relief at surviving to peak effectiveness period. In the same process, comradeship was encouraged.
The soldiers were allowed to celebrate victory this leading to battle excitement when engaging. Sometimes, enemy besting posed as a big challenge to the troops. The soldiers in American were neither frightened nor guilt ridden after silencing the enemy.
Other soldiers were reluctant while others enjoyed. Few of the soldiers hesitated to pull the trigger when it called for it (Peter, 2003). Suddenly, for most veterans in combats, events varied, they were either emotional or painful, and they were exhausted physically.
Also, it triggered nervous collapse or loss of confidence. While the improved healing methods which made it possible in returning many cases in line that are breakdown.
Preventive treatment was introduced for relief, either permanent or temporary, from the alien combat environment. In the book, commanders and scholars attempting to understand the troops are reviewed. The book is charming and based on tough arguments on the way the soldiers mind works.
Further, Kindsvatter, upend many stereotypes. Soldiers in the First World War were considered not to be cheerful; nevertheless, the Korean War GIs were never world fatigued or reluctant soldiers. Also the Vietnam grunts were not drugged out fatalists. The book also talks about fascinating people. Unfortunately, it also touches on the effect in making individual experience to be disjointed and also fragmentary.
In the book, the new soldiers did not get a chance in developing their skilled combat; instead, the writer selected portions of service suiting categories. The book may serve as introduction and broad also compelling the body literature written by the combat veterans.
The author also speaks about the challenges Army veterans underwent encouraging them to write more on their experiences (Peter, 2003). Moreover, the author argues on how soldiers were conscripted; even the volunteers were encouraged by likelihood and were drafted eventually. The author further touches on the attitudes rear echelon troops and the front civilians.
This kind of book is meant to encourage our soldiers who read it. Regardless of their combat experience or service years, it may be better preparing another trip to the “National training Centre” and be better than other jaunt to simulation centre. Furthermore, it touches on the lives of soldiers in front. The author provides a very sympathetic voice for the ones who failed in combat.
References
Peter, S. K. (2003). American Soldiers: Ground combat in the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. New York: University press of Kansas