The Direction of War: Contemporary Strategy in Historical Perspective

While not perfect, certainly one of the best works on strategy I've read recently and possibly the best work on post-1945 strategic history I've read in a while. Two main flaws or issues of contention: Strachan's critique of civil-military relations is at times lucid, but at other times appears to come slightly off the rails. Second, the books origin as a (much altered and added too) collection of articles shows through in the many areas which it doubles back on itself covering ground previously well trodden, at times this is done to build on previously mentioned ideas, at other times it seems overly repetitive. On the whole it is an excellent assessment and critique of the recent history of Strategic Studies as a field, as a historian I find many of his disciplinary critiques of the history/IR balance quite convincing, but I suppose I'm biased.

I find this book matches the recommendations for it.

Can't say I agree with the author's analysis, but it is interesting to read something that is not laced with political correctness. This seems an honest assessment of how things are. I recommend it.

I think we need to get to know who our new leaders are going to be. This is one of the books on "Mad Dog"'s reading list. So far it has been very compelling and interesting. Having lived during the Colin Powell years and Bush years as a young impressionable youth to now see what was really going on and the thought behind it.

Hew Stratchan has used a clear and lucid narrative style to throw light upon the otherwise drab subject of strategy, drawing upon his talent as an historian, contemporising it in the current global environment, and has presented a practical guide to understanding strategic theory and putting it in practice.

This book is an excellent supplement to Clausewitz or Jomni or anything like that. It puts the parameters of strategy in the context of recent history. I liked that angle about it. You will get a new perspective on strategic thought through that for sure. I can't think of anything that does that for a reader. The nature of the material really would go over with readers who have a history on the topic and who work in the field. The downside to me is how the book supplements other material. It has awesome chapters on various aspects of strategy like technology. I liked the criticism of US policy in the Middle East. The author has some great points. However, the book needs a connecting thread among these chapters. It never clearly defines strategy and why it could or does for a nation. If you are in some staff college studying strategy, this book is your ticket to an A grade.

This is a very very useful work for members of the contemporary national security strategy community. While Hew's reputation as a historian is very high, it is his thoughtful and insightful comments that he makes in the latter chapters that lay out some of the critical challenges facing contemporary military and civilian leaders.

This is a must have book. It is, beyond a doubt, the best book I have read on military strategy. The author is clear, provides case examples, and more importantly makes this "readable." I retired with 24 years on active duty and spent 15 more working in PMC's working in austere and conflict environments. THIS book is long overdue.

Bel saggio.

An outstanding read for national leadership, strategic and security professionals. A detailed historical study leading upto a very relevant analysis of civil military relations for the modern day.

I enjoyed this , it was engaging and thoughtful. Modern strategy it seems has been misused mis understood and simply not taught at staff colleges correctly. This book should be on officers reading lists...

Many repetitions, and a sort of nominalistic approach that, in my humble opinion, overstates the importance of "the" right definition of strategy for achieving good results in the planning and direction of war (and since, in Strachan's view, many many authors and military and political practitioners had no or a wrong definition of strategy, they blundered - they should have asked him!). The study has not been written as a systematic treatment from a singl mould and from the first to the last page, therefore some topics often emerge, but are not dealt with thoroughly (e.g. the "nature" of war). All in all: two points.

Series of lectures on the subject. Interesting variety.