The Father of Us All

Customer Reviews

• Well written

  This is a wonderful book, extremely well written and not at all pedantic or boring as some books written by college professors can be. He definitely gives a different perspective on war and terrorism and the impact democracy has had on civilizations. While the book is dense with important information, it reads like a novel. You don't want to put it down. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

• Erudite, but highly biased

  I think this book is a valuable read, not so much because of its historical detail, but because it represents, better than anything I've yet encountered, the mindset of an educated political conservative, and how to render a revisionist view of history credible. As Hayden White has demonstrated (cf. "Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism"), no account of history is devoid of bias. Mr. Hanson's bias is artfully obscured by his undeniable familiarity with a wealth of historical data which he presents in the erudite manner of an academician lecturing to a lay audience.
  
  As others have mentioned, the book is not a consistent narrative, but rather a selection of essays and reviews he has penned over the last decade. His bias is reflected in the original target audiences for his epistles; e.g., the National Review, the Hoover Institution, the Heritage Foundation, the "Margaret Thatcher Lecture," etc.
  
  Of course, there's nothing wrong with having a bias. In fact, we all do; it's unavoidable. But any credible professional historian has, I believe, a responsibility to his audience to acknowledge his biases and recognize that there are other views and opposing opinions that might be worthy of serious consideration. Hanson falls short in that area.
  
  Since his book begins with his deploring the incredible lack of knowledge about the history of war among the American people--a statement of fact with which I agree 100% (consider the recent 4th of July poll revealing that about 25% of Americans didn't even know from what country we declared our independence in 1776!)--he has that much greater an obligation to strive for some modicum of objectivity and provide a balanced treatment of his subject. I'll illustrate his shortcomings with a few examples.
  
  Although for several millennia philosophers have struggled to determine just what "human nature" is, if it exists at all, Hanson does not hesitate to assure us that "[t]he peril is not in accepting that the innate nature of war lies in the dark hearts of us all, but rather in denying it."
  
  This is nothing more than asserting the well-heeled "conservative" emphasis on "nature" dominating "nurture." While admitting that recent research by neuroscientists seems to indicate that humans may, indeed, be exceptionally aggressive animals by default, it fails to account for the Martin Luther Kings, Mother Teresas, Gandhis, etc., who seem to reappear with each new generation. Hanson, like all conservatives, looks only to the past, where he easily finds ample evidence to support his concept of a "dog eat dog," Hobbesian world. He then projects that same past into the future. Liberals, in contrast, tend to believe that human nature is malleable and, under the right circumstances and influences, we might be able to create a more peaceful world in the future.
  
  I disagree with another reviewer who applauded Hanson for not criticizing his opposition; i.e., democrats, liberals, pacifists, etc. I discerned many such criticisms, albeit cloaked in much more subtle language than that used by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Fox News talking-heads, and other main stream hate-mongers. For example, is it any less vindictive to say, instead of hurling epithets like "communist, socialist, evil,..."), that Jimmy Carter and Noam Chomsky are on Osama Bin Laden's list of recommended reading for Americans? Or to group a legitimately elected populist president like Hugo Chavez (I recently spent six months in Venezuela) with mass murderers like Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban?
  
  Hanson states that most of our wars were only hesitantly waged by Democratic presidents, who then usually failed to be aggressive enough to both win a victory and thoroughly "humiliate" the enemy. He virtually ignores the fact that it was Republican presidents who sought to continue and illegally expand the Vietnam War into Cambodia and Laos (Nixon), who invaded Grenada and subsidized death squads in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and other parts of Central and South America (Reagan), who launched the first gulf war and a unilateral invasion of Panama (Bush I)and launched two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan (Bush II), all in the last half-century. It is correct, I believe, that Democratic presidents are, by nature, rather reluctant to resort to war, whereas Republican presidents have shown a strong inclination to resort to a "big stick" approach to international relations, eager to apply violent means even if it must be done clandestinely, without the support or knowledge of the American people.
  
  Finally, I think the most serious case of historic revisionism in Hanson's book is his attempt to justify G.W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Almost nothing is said of the deliberate manufacturing and misreading of intelligence reports, the bold fabrication of blatant lies about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the existence of immense oil reserves in Iraq and the influence of Cheney, the ex-CEO of Halliburton, or Bush's irrational hatred of Saddam. Despite the fact that the first thing U.S. troops did following the successful invasion was to secure the Iraqi oil fields, Hanson flatly denies that the war had anything to do with Iraqi oil. No, according to Hanson, Bush's objective was nothing more than a purely humanitarian desire to rid the world of a murderous dictator and assure the Iraqi people of a future under a democratic government. If these were Bush's goals, despite his denial of any interest in being a "nation-builder" during his first presidential campaign, the plans for implementing any semblance of a working democracy in Iraq following the military victory must have been lost somewhere along the way.
  
  Hanson's book, if somewhat disorganized and redundant here and there, is still an interesting read. However, the reader who approaches it without a rather good background in world history, should do so with caution. There are many fascinating historical facts, sagas and anecdotes. Unfortunately, the opposing facts, of which there are many, are missing; there is almost nothing to mitigate Hanson's right-wing, conservative, and largely depressing, account of "human nature," the history of war, and the future of human relations.
  
  
  
  
  

• Democracy and war: superbly written and spot on.

  In this book, the extraordinarily readable Victor David Hansen, explores and applies the perspectives of two millennia of academic analysis and reflection by the first, and some of the subsequent, best and brightest historians. Prof. Hansen reviews current global and, more specifically American, political and military events, tensions and conflicting viewpoints, and reminds us that while we think our contemporary situations and reactions are unique, they are not. Our actions, issues, misgivings and turmoil are part of a long and recognizable history of democracy at war. This is one of the best books I have read in the last year and it has dramatically expanded my perspectives on current events.

• Timely commentary on profoundly difficult issues

  Dr. Hansen makes soul-searching points about the role of military force in today's Western world.

• Victor Davis Hanson is a National Treasure

  Victor Davis Hanson's latest collection of essays, "The Father of us all: War and History, Ancient and Modern" is a brilliant examination of warfare and its study. Hanson consistently applies lessons from the past to the modern world, though is careful to note that the study of history is not a simply a convenient grab bag to make a point, but rather a general tool that allows us to made predictions for the future. His analysis is sharp and clever, and leaves the reader astounded at the depth of his intellect. The first essay, "Why Study War?" is worth the price of this book alone. Here Hanson covers the importance of understanding military history and its applications. He notes that this field can help answer certain questions should war be thrust upon us in the future. It can help us with questions like "how do wars begin?", "how can we quickly win a war if necessary?", and "how can we mitigate war's worst effects?"
  
  He dispels the notion that military historians are somehow pro-war and secretly long for it. Rather Hanson is a realist that accepts that war is part of the human condition- from Thucydides to Operation Iraqi Freedom- and therefore an understanding of man at his worst is crucial if civilization is to survive and progress. Hanson also laments the lack of military historians in academia today. (A former Canadian history professor of mine regaled me with a story of how a colleague, a gender historian, angrily demanded to know why a course in World War II was even offered in their history department.) Despite academia's reluctance to embrace military history, dating back to the US defeat in Vietnam, Hanson points out the vast public interest in military history by inviting the reader to check out the sections on the Civil War and World War II at the local bookstore. As a classicist, Hanson also comments upon the recent film, "300", citing both those things that it got right and wrong. He offers incisive looks into the horrors of war by commenting on Sledge's "With the Old Breed", and examines the shifting roles of decisive battle and irregular warfare.
  
  This is a thoroughly engaging book by one of America's most brilliant historians. For anybody interested the in the importance of war as part of the human condition I highly recommend this work.