I would give Admiral McRaven 5 stars, but I didn't love this book, unfortunately. Most of the book, the first 8 hours on audiobook, I had to force mysI would give Admiral McRaven 5 stars, but I didn't love this book, unfortunately. Most of the book, the first 8 hours on audiobook, I had to force myself to keep listening to. It wasn't that the stories were bad, the stories just weren't as good as podcasts or other news. I was planning to give the book 2 stars until the final chapters on Neptune's Spear - the Osama Bin Laden raid.
The majority of the book was good. However, I guess I was expecting more missions, and less stories on training or training accidents. I'm glad he reminds us of the costs to the men fighting our wars - like the soldier who lost 4 limbs and said, "Don't worry about me - I'll be just fine. I'm 24 and have my whole life ahead of me."
At the end, he reflects on what is necessary for a good life and says it is pretty simple, "Work as hard as you can, make as many friends as you can, help as many people as you can, and no matter what happens, never quit."...more
Looking through some of the reviews, I don't think I am the intended audience for this book because most people were giving this 5 stars. My takeaway Looking through some of the reviews, I don't think I am the intended audience for this book because most people were giving this 5 stars. My takeaway was that this was an ode to the time when American engineers were allowed to build things, and when allowed, they built stuff 20 to 30 years ahead of the rest of the world. I feel Lockheed's pain when OSHA shows up to the skunk works for the first time - haha.
The development of the planes is interesting, but I think Annie Jacobson tells it better in her books. In her book on Area 51, she might not focus as much on how the plans are built, but she goes into detail about how they are flown and what they accomplished.
Anyway, I came away with respect for Kelly Johnson and the other engineers/skilled workers at the Skunkworks. However, I'm still disappointed/confused about how our weapon systems are chosen and the military/industrial complex....more
**spoiler alert** I had mixed feelings about this book. I read Ronen Bergman's "Rise and Kill First, The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassina**spoiler alert** I had mixed feelings about this book. I read Ronen Bergman's "Rise and Kill First, The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations" a few months ago. It seemed as though he had much detail about every operation that he covered. It covers just about the same time period as Jacobson's, but it seemed much richer in detail and facts. So I'm more critical about this book. Sometimes the chapters didn't seem relevant to the book title.
I'm a huge fan of Jacobson, and I've read all her books. I'm giving this one 3 stars, but I will probably read it again. Billy Waugh's life story - 50 years in the CIA, suiting up for the Afghan invasion at 72 - was incredible. The injuries he endured and over came were crazy. There were many stories of death and bravery. Reading this book so close to Memorial Day was very fitting because I felt extremely grateful for the sacrifices for the men in the armed services have made. I also found her critique of Bob Ames refreshing after having read The Good Spy by Kai Bird.
I think the book lost steam, somewhat after the 70s. Probably due to all the investigations into the CIA and executive orders limiting their ability. Which is probably why I'm giving this book 3 stars, I liked it, but there was too much irrelevant (in my opinion) narrative. I think Ghost Wars is a great novel to read in combination with this book, since Steven Coll covers the CIA's roll in Afghanistan in the 1980's....more
I listened to this as an audiobook, and I think I spent the first 7 hours horrified. But, I keep reminding myself that it was written from the perspecI listened to this as an audiobook, and I think I spent the first 7 hours horrified. But, I keep reminding myself that it was written from the perspective of a reporter and military generals, so there was a prerogative to make the administration look as bad as possible. There were quotes from generals, "our thinking at the time was, ..." where the thinking at the time was not flattering to the administration. But that seems like hearsay when looking back at the failure that was Iraq.
Overall, with how poorly everything turned out in Iraq, it seems reasonable that the overall message of the first 7 hours, that the planning for Iraq was centered almost entirely on reducing the number of troops to be deployed and finding a way to deploy troops as fast as possible instead of on what to do once Iraq was conquered is correct. The authors seem to have plenty of evidence for their conclusions, that the administration did not plan for how to fight irregular troops or how to govern Iraq once it was conquered. There also seemed to be no coordination between the civilian authority in post-Saddam Iraq (led by Bremer) and the military. In the epilogue, the authors summarize how Bremer's actions directly contradicted the military's plan for post-Saddam Iraq (like using the Iraq army for security).
Listening to the actual battles on the march for Baghdad, it seemed like communication was poor. Which seems to be a recurring theme as I read about military history. We lost soldiers early because a support group got in advance of all other units somehow. In other places, no fuel could be found at refueling stations. We started the Dora Farms bombing without notifying all commanders. Perkins took Baghdad without letting his superiors know his plan. There was a plan, but nothing went according to it. The authors note that the mess was attributed to the "friction" of war, but it seems like more could have been done.
In all, this account seems in line with Thomas Ricks account in Fiasco, and this book is on the Marine Commandants reading list, so I think it is a good account, if depressing....more
In my opinion, not as good as Ghost Wars. Maybe because the US looks fairly effective against the Soviets in Ghost Wars, and Directorate S covers the In my opinion, not as good as Ghost Wars. Maybe because the US looks fairly effective against the Soviets in Ghost Wars, and Directorate S covers the US war in Afghanistan... I felt like there was more detail, and maybe that made it more technical and less of a smooth narrative than Ghost Wars.
This book covers mistakes made by the US military as it began operating in Afghanistan post 9/11. It also goes into more detail about Pakistan's efforts to destabilize Afghanistan and their continual support of the Taliban (even though they ended suffering around 21,000 civilian casualties from terrorism since 9/11). I don't think I ever thought much about Pakistan's government (which is not a democracy - ruled by the military) and how unstable their government is (leaders getting assassinated, a military coup). But, they have nuclear weapons, so there is fear of what Pakistan might do with those weapons or what might happen to those weapons if Pakistan's government was overthrown.
It really seems like the US military is not made for Nation building type engagements. The author's observation, that the military forgot what it was like to fight a long war with media coverage reminded me of the Allure of Battle, where the author constantly repeated before new major wars: and so another generation grew up, and having not learned the lessons of past wars, thought they would like to try it too.
It was a mess. Afghans killing UN soldiers. UN soldiers (and American soldiers) not respecting Afghan civilians. Karzai trusting no one. No one trusting Karzai. Fraudulent elections. And Pakistan's ISI enabling the horribleness to continue...
This was really good. I started to give it 4 stars, and then I realized that I had stopped listening to podcasts until I finished a 25 hour audiobook.This was really good. I started to give it 4 stars, and then I realized that I had stopped listening to podcasts until I finished a 25 hour audiobook.
This region is likely to play an important role in foreign policy for countries around the globe (see Monsoon by Kaplan and also One Belt, One Road). America's history is enthralling and tragic. We had a CIA agent start funneling single shot rifles to Afghan rebels to fight the Soviet Union back rebels. Saudi Arabia also matched every dollar the US spent, dollar for dollar. I thought this seemed unusual, but seems to be the way Saudi Arabia operates. From small beginnings, the Unites States got up to $250 million a year, which was also matched by the Saudis. It seems this was due to support from Charlie Wilson for the Afghans.
Once the Soviet Union left, the US, and George Bush's administration, lost interest in Afghanistan. Pakistan continually supported Islamic rebels, like the Taliban, because such groups would also terrorize India. The Pakistan/India relationship is a whole other story, where Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear weapons at one point. And so, through Pakistan support, the Taliban gained a foothold, and then a country. A strategic play by Pakistan to harass India led to the 9/11 bombings.
The book covers Osama Bin Laden's life, the history of Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia's involvement in financing extremism, Pakistan's many coups, Hamid Kharzai's rise, and the US pursuit of Bin Laden prior to 9/11. ...more
I read this book because it was on the Marine Commandant's Professional Reading list. I think it provides an excellent brief history of the region. AfI read this book because it was on the Marine Commandant's Professional Reading list. I think it provides an excellent brief history of the region. After reading it, my main questions is if there is a similarly comprehensive update of what has taken place over the past 10 years since the book was published. I remember not reading the book in 2010 because the WSJ review seemed negative: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014.... "Mr. Kaplan offers plenty of striking insights in "Monsoon," and his analysis generally makes sense—but I nonetheless have trouble believing that the future of the 21st century will hinge on naval power. Military ships these days seemed designed more for intimidation and transport than for all-out naval warfare—they're sitting ducks for sophisticated rocketry."
So I wonder if his predictions are playing out. China is definitely aggressively pushing for natural resource access throughout the Indian Ocean and Central Asia. China continues to secure its borders. I know less about India, other than some difficulties with their aircraft carrier and that Modi was elected Prime Minister in 2014. I remember that war almost broke out between India and China over some disputed land in Bhutan in 2017. It seems to me that 10 years is to short a time to judge his book. ;)...more
I decided to read this book after reading Black Hawk Down. In Black Hawk Down, Bowden provides a detailed account of fighting inside a city. I was intI decided to read this book after reading Black Hawk Down. In Black Hawk Down, Bowden provides a detailed account of fighting inside a city. I was interested to see how principles from Somali might have been applied in Iraq. This book, covering a much longer period (2003-2006) does not get into any individual battle details or, really, tactical decisions. For the most part, this book focuses on: 1) strategy (or lack thereof) at high levels of command 2) lack of army preparedness for a Phase 4 (occupation of Iraq) 3) Implications of the invasion on the future of the Middle East
As far as I know, the book does an excellent job of addressing these 4 points. I think the author tried to be balanced. For example, in his critique of General Odierno's use of heavy force, he acknowledges that the force may have been necessary even if it was counterproductive in terms of fueling the insurgency.
With respect to occupation, he doesn't paint a pretty picture. US soldiers are scared and seeking vengeance. Iraqi citizens are opposed to being occupied.
For his third point, his is eerily accurate in his predictions (circa 2006) that the Iraqi invasion could result in a regional conflict or a training ground for terrorists. I don't know enough if his prediction of a potential strongman leader came true, but as he described the conditions (lawlessness) that could lead to it and than the characteristics of the leader, I thought instantly of Rodrigo Duterte....more
I'm really glad this book was written. It captures the activity of pretty much the entire period of time that the Battle of the Black Sea took place iI'm really glad this book was written. It captures the activity of pretty much the entire period of time that the Battle of the Black Sea took place in Mogadishu, Somali over October 3rd and 4th, 1993. The fighting was intense and surreal. The Somalis were fearless, in fact reckless, in their attack. The American Rangers and Delta force were brave and survived where, from a numerical standpoint, they should have been over ran.
I think the afterword gives a pretty good summary. America was the lone super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and so it seemed like America should end the suffering caused by famine. But since the famine in Somali was caused by feuding warlords who used starvation as a tool, it seemed like America should nation build in Somali after the famine was relieved. And once Mohamed Farrah Aidid's men killed UN peacekeepers in June 1993, it seemed like America should remove him from causing more trouble.
In retrospect, the author says that it would have been better to not go after Aidid, but once we did lose 19 soldiers, and 73 wounded, we should have stayed the course until Aidid was removed. As I listened to the book, I kept thinking, what are the American military leaders doing? How could they plan such a disaster? At the end, Bowden reminds us that if the first blackhawk wasn't hit, General Harrison's plan would have worked perfectly and been a complete success. A few minutes made the difference....more
I thought the book was incredibly well done and listened to the audio every chance I got. I just finished "The Allure of Battle" which provided overviI thought the book was incredibly well done and listened to the audio every chance I got. I just finished "The Allure of Battle" which provided overviews of many of the battles/wars where automatic guns would play an out-sized role in proving the "short war" narrative wrong. It was in this book where I learned that it was the French mitral gun that provided them with superior close arms fire that caused such high German casualties. Chivers starts with the Gatling Gun, to the Maxim Gun, to the German machine guns that inspired the AK-47. He details the process by which the AK-47 was developed and how much better it was than what the United States and its allies had.
Which brings me to the darkest part of the book, and why I wish I had the hard copy. The introduction of the M-16 at the beginning of the Vietnam War is appalling. From Larry Rottman's poem:
“The M-16 sure is a marvelous gun, and in a god-awful war it provides some keen fun. The bullet it fires appears too small to harm but it makes a big hole and can tear off an arm. Single shot, semi, or full automatic, a real awesome weapon, ’tho in performance sporadic. But listen to Ichord and forget that stuck bolt, for you aren’t as important as a kickback from Colt. So carry your rifle (they don’t give a damn), just pray you won’t need it while you’re in Vietnam. The M-16 is issue, though we all feel trapped. More GIs would protest, but somehow they got zapped.”
The parts at the end did a good job of tying the present to the past. He detailed personal stories of violence from AK-47's to descriptions of revolutions and murder (e.g., the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, Joseph Kony). I thought asking Mikhail Kalashnikov if he regretted developing the gun was a little sappy because he couldn't know what would happen in the decades following 1947. I mean you could ask the same question to every US arms designer for every weapons system they've developed.
I read this book after seeing a review in the Wall Street Journal. I thought it was outstanding. I'm sure each of the great Captains that he covered wI read this book after seeing a review in the Wall Street Journal. I thought it was outstanding. I'm sure each of the great Captains that he covered warrant their own review, but from someone unfamiliar with the history of military tactics/evolution, but interested in them, this book was first rate! I've always wondered how Sweden became a Great Power for a time - it was Gustav II Adolphus. I had never actually heard of the Duke of Marlborough or Gustaf Mauritz. Of course, everybody knows about Napolean, but who has ever heard of Helmuth von Moltke? And those Swiss armies! Undefeated for 200 years until the arrival of firepower.
As time progresses, I'm sure I'll tried to read about each great general in more detail. Having read Nolan, I will know that none of the Captains are as great as their biographers make them out to be. Brilliance is more often luck, and when genius is present for a battle, it is often not combined with long term strategy (e.g., Hannibal at Cannae).
I also thought he was clever in making his points. "And so another generation forgot about war, and thought they would like to try it to." And that is all he offers about the future. Although nuclear weapons appear to have made war between great powers unlikely, a generation in the future might decide they want to try it to....more
This was another book I decided to read based on the title without reading a summary. Which means the book was nothing like what expected. The Future This was another book I decided to read based on the title without reading a summary. Which means the book was nothing like what expected. The Future of War: A history makes no predictions about the future of war other than that people who try to predict the future will be mostly wrong although they may succeed in getting the military to prepare appropriately.
I found the beginning of the book the most interesting. He began by recounting what all experts predicted future wars would look like for wars starting after 1900. The theme is that experts were wrong. They were wrong in thinking that a single, devastating surprise battle/battle plans could win a war (e.g., Pearl Harbor, Operation Barbarosa). Experts were wrong about the resilience of their enemies to recover from such blows.
I don't remember everything in the middle; I didn't find it interesting. However, eventually he left the arena of urban and guerrilla warfare. He wrote about the science of war and the great difficulty in obtaining reliable statistics about deaths and casualties and impact on civilians. We don't even know how many men died in the American Civil War. Since many of the wars since 1989 have been civil wars, he explained how they start, how they end, their aftermath, and why outside countries try not to get involved.
The end, where he finally addressed future war, he critiqued those who try to predict the future. Namely, that most futurists rely on America's enemies to do something improbable (and usually not in the enemy's best interest) to start a war. And I would say that is his main point - war is horrible, and decision makers should avoid it at all costs. Having read Graham Allison's book "Destined for War", I found Freedman's critique of him really interesting (and kinda of humorous).
Be prepared for stats if you read this one!...more
I'm giving it three stars because over the course of the book I decided that I should have probably just read the wikipedia page on the Falklands War.I'm giving it three stars because over the course of the book I decided that I should have probably just read the wikipedia page on the Falklands War. However, the book was excellently written and contained as much detail as you could wish for. The one thing I wish this book would have had is an epilogue that talks about the outcomes of the war. I know his entire book is objective, and a review of the war would be subjective, but I would like to know if the Falkland War is considered a success (since Britain won) or a failure (since they loss hundreds of millions of pounds in ships and planes).
For me, I found the 1) sovereignty history of the Falklands and 2) the mechanical/logistic problems of equipment to be most interesting. The fact that Exocet attacks were so successful because a ship was turned the wrong way - so the Sea Dart system cannot be engaged. Or how difficult war was without satellite images, GPS, or ineffectual radio communication. Two ships would pick up an Argentinian raid, but the ships hit would not get notified. Or, a helicopter couldn't fire its weapons because it was too early in the morning the the weapon wasn't able to aim in such conditions.
The author also commented a few times on the lack of discipline by the Argentinian soldiers (e.g., their latrines were directly next to their trenches and positions)....more
The content wasn't what I was expecting based on the title. I thought there would be more content on weapons of the future and how they would affect wThe content wasn't what I was expecting based on the title. I thought there would be more content on weapons of the future and how they would affect warfare. There was some of that, but it seemed like most of the book philosophized on the ethics/morality of autonomous weapons. I'm glad people are thinking about it, and people have thought a lot about it, but I think there was one message repeated throughout the book: Ultimately, what other nations (e.g., China, Russia) choose with respect to deploying autonomous weapons will dictate what the United States does. Once the other side starts using technology to defeat their opponent, the opponent adopts the same technology or accepts terms....more
This is a great book. John Boyd was an amazing pilot, academic and scholar. Even if you are one of the people who feel like Coram falls into hero worsThis is a great book. John Boyd was an amazing pilot, academic and scholar. Even if you are one of the people who feel like Coram falls into hero worship of Boyd, there is a ton of history that millennials should learn. For example, the movement in the early eighties to reform procurement in a thoroughly corrupted Pentagon. Another example is that senior pentagon officials were okay with falsifying safety tests, if it meant a weapon would get approved. In this case, Burton said, "your models don't account for risks from fire, explosions, or noxious gas, even though they were the leading cause of tank-related casualties in WWII, Israel and English battles." Pentagon officer response, "our computer models can't account for fire, explosions or gas, so we ignored them."
Boyd was the best fighter pilot because he lived at the edge and was willing to die to see how the planes he flew really performed. Since he pushed the limits further then anyone else, he could do things other pilots couldn't. He wrote the Air Force's manual on fighter tactics.
He then went to Georgia Tech and got a degree in engineering. Learning engineering principles, he was able to develop the energy-maneuverability theory, which became the basis for designing jets.
He then studied warfare and developed tactics used extensively by the Marines and by officers that planned the first invasion of Iraq.
He worked so hard. He put everything second to the Air Force and his country (including his family). He would work all night. He would call others in the middle of the night to discuss his thoughts. If he deemed something important, he would work on it without stopping. ...more
I heard the author on the John Batchelor radio show and his book sounded interesting so I read it. It was good, but I couldn't give it four stars (whiI heard the author on the John Batchelor radio show and his book sounded interesting so I read it. It was good, but I couldn't give it four stars (which corresponds to "I really liked it").
The title was perfect, but from what I've read about military history, it could be applied to lots of campaigns or beginnings of wars (e.g., confederacy in the civil war). General Conrad and Emperor Franz Joseph should have read Sun Tzu and realized not to engage in a war they could not win. Austria Hungary was bankrupt and ineffectual politically. They had fewer men than the Entente powers and they had worse technology.
What struck me was that prior to WWI, Austria was paying twice as much to retired generals as to active. It made me think of the US military budget. I saw somewhere that veteran pay and benefits cost $177 billion (if this number is wrong, please let me know the correct one). It became difficult for Austria to maintain an army with new technology when their pension costs were so high and they were weakened by internal political instability. Really, Germany was ascendant, Britain was scared and there was a war. Graham Allison lays this out in his recent book "destined for war".
Why is the title so fitting? Austria held war games in 1913 that illustrated their tactics in 1914 would not work. Yep, Conrad utilized plans that he projected to fail. So over a million Austrians died. Russian artillery could fire 4 to 5 miles, while Austrian could only fire 2 miles. You see, Austria still used bronze cannon instead of steel because bronze were cheaper. At one battle, Austrian artillery received blank shells and used them to no effect. Austrians would launch frontal attacks into machine gun-entrenched positions, losing needlessly high numbers of troops. It was a catastrophe that led to their subjugation to Germany and ultimate dismantlement by the Allied Powers....more
World War II and the years preceding it were a horrible time. Annie Jacobsen has done a tremendous job in hunting down all unclassified and previouslyWorld War II and the years preceding it were a horrible time. Annie Jacobsen has done a tremendous job in hunting down all unclassified and previously classified information about the US governments efforts to bring Nazi scientists to the United States in the fields of medicine and rocket technology. She states the process at the end of the book, but I don't think people really appreciate all the work she has done.
The US government does not always de-classify information. However, the public can submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to gain access to previously classified or undisclosed information. However, the government doesn't need to be helpful in interpreting the public's FOIA requests. If a request is not specific or precise, the government can respond that the records don't exist or can't be found. I appreciate her effort immensely.
Along with her other books, she really raises the question of does the ends justify the means.
My other takeaway is how did German science get so far ahead of the rest of the world in the 1930's? We justified bringing their scientists to the US because Germany was decades ahead of us in rocket technology....more
Another awesome book from Annie Jacobsen. Currently, she is one of my favorite non-fiction authors. Her writing isn't sexy, but she is the master of tAnother awesome book from Annie Jacobsen. Currently, she is one of my favorite non-fiction authors. Her writing isn't sexy, but she is the master of the FOIA. Holy cow, she interviews the right people and then gets her FOIA request where it needs to go. I can understand how some people may not like her style of going from FOIA information to unclassified info to another FOIA, but the work she put in must have been incredible. Even when I thought the information was somewhat mundane (which it might have been once or twice), I still respected her ability to gather all this previously classified information.
What I found interesting about the novel is that everything she wrote was backed up from unclassified documents, until she got to her final conclusion for the Roswell incident (1947). The facts support that Stalin used German rocket scientists to launch a flying disc into the US from Alaska. She cites an interview from a former EGG employee who says that there were children at the crash site who had been mutilated and deformed by Josef Mengele (Nazi scientist) for Stalin. Stalin launched this effort to create the panic inspired by the 1938 reading of the War of the Worlds. All this is primarily based on an interview with a former defense contractor employee.
Much of the rest of the novel seems well researched and more believable. Area 51 was home to projects to develop nuclear weapons and high tech aircraft. Much of the novel deals with the U2 spy plane, the oxcart spy plane, stolen MIGs and Stealth technology. Another significant portion deals with nuclear bomb testing. And much more deals with UFO's and the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union for German rocket scientists....more
Sometimes I am amazed at the amount of research that authors do to write their books. It's crazy how many records he looked at and the number of peoplSometimes I am amazed at the amount of research that authors do to write their books. It's crazy how many records he looked at and the number of people he interviewed - including Mikhail Gorbachev. The book has a lot of detail, so even though I found the book interesting, it took me a while to finish it.
The book has more on the Soviet Union than the U.S. My assumption is that because the U.S. has been more transparent about closing down their biologic weapons program and their policies regarding chemical and nuclear weapons.
For the nuclear program, both countries had early detection systems, and both countries have had close calls with false alarms. A key difference between the countries was economic. The Soviet Union had to devote 20% or more of GDP to maintain their military industrial complex. The combination of economic misallocation and old uninspiring leaders lead to the decline of the Soviet Union and ascent of Gorbachev.
The Soviet Program was unbelievable. They monitored people rather than weapons, so when the Union broke apart, little of the fissile material for nuclear weapons or organisms for biological weapons were accounted for. Unsurprisingly, Iran had agents visiting every former Soviet republic trying to recruit weapon scientists (biological and nuclear) as well as weapon material. North Korea tried to recruit an entire cohort of scientists.
The biological weapons stuff is disappointing. Even after signing an international accord to not develop biological weapons, the Soviet Union created facilities to mass produce anthrax, plague, etc.
The story of the Reagan and Gorbachev was really fascinating. Great research and story. Ann Jacobson's book on DARPA is really complementary to this book, but focuses more on the US military programs....more
From the reviews I looked at, most seem to rate the book high or low. They rate it low if they expect great dialogue and great plot among characters. From the reviews I looked at, most seem to rate the book high or low. They rate it low if they expect great dialogue and great plot among characters. People rate it high if they read the book to learn about the future use of military tech.
I read this book to learn about where military tech is headed and weaknesses in our systems based on the recommendation of a former fellow at the CNO SSG. I thought it was great. It tied together a lot of things I had read about cyber warfare and DARPA programs. I was not as familiar with the Naval or Air Force weapon systems, but I might to read more about them now. One thing I found unrealistic was the widespread use of stimulants. The FDA is never going to approve the widespread use of stimulants (which can have serious side effects) to improve performance at work.
I found the intro to the novel jarring. I really hope we aren't as easy a target as the book portrays, but some of the scenarios are too close for comfort.
Red Storm Rising was the second Tom Clancy book I read in high school, and I couldn't help but notice the similarities. The cause of Russian aggression in RSR was Russia losing oil from one of its refineries. In this novel, the distant precipitant of Chinese aggression was limited supplies of oil due to Saudi oil supplies being taken off line.
Can't wait to go through the end notes in more detail!...more
Loading...
