Ralph peters has a pretty unique style among military writers.

His utterly unceremonial writing style, completely devoid of political correctness and full of unconventional insights is so refreshing, that one would recommend the purchase of the book just for this.
The book is also (like the entire production of the author) an invaluable antidote to pacifism, as opposed to being pacific.

The book is a collection of articles appeared in several magazines during 2006 and 2007, which maintain their entertaining value even when the situation which originated the article has lost some or all of its actuality.

You will not always agree with Peters' unconventional opinions, but I am confident that you will not regret the money spent.

This book was advertised as a large print edition. I am 77 years old have small cataracs and need the large print to enjoy reading. The copy I received is printed in a font size of about 8 or 10. Thus reading the book is very slow and unenjoyable for me.

The book consists of reprints of newspaper oped pieces by the author. They are sometimes thoughtful, but he has a tendency to rant. I,too, am a retired military officer (USMC) and appreciate his gripes as well as his truism that war is all about killing the enemy and destroying his capacity to wage war. He points out how "rules f engagement" and our dread of "collateral damage" unnecessarily restrict our Armies from achieving the objective of winning conflicts with the least damage to ourselves.

I believe I would have rated this book higher if it had been in large print.

Starting with the 1999 "Fighting For The Future: Will America Triumph?" compendium, Peters has published non-fiction, fiction and a series of other compendiums taken from his daily columns - totally revelent to why we're in our current situation worldwide.

He forcasted the difficulty of urban combat in 1995 - no secret going all the way back to WWII - but WHY we were equipped to fight on the plains of EUROPE 10 years after the cold war was over - ? What worked in Desert Storm in 1991 because we 'failed' to take Baghdad - did not work in 2003 when we occupied it. What worked in Afghanistan failed in Iraq ... and Peters tells us why.

General Patraius was on the right track when commanding the 'surge' - and Peters was correct in his forcasts. What completely threw me was his repeated statement that the Shi'a - minus Iran - and Iran minus the mullahs - are the better bet than the compliant Sunni in us having any friends in the region.

As a retired Intelligence Officer of 27 years myself - I can relate to why Peters retired when he did - and challenge the 'wisdom' of 'experts' on either side of the aisle.

His continued reference to John McCain and Joe Lieberman as perhaps the only two politicians who "get it" among all the talking heads in Washington is food for thought in our upcoming election. Unfortunately he fails to tell us why. AFTER the book was published - the success of the surge - backed by Lieberman and McCain explains why ... but those who disagree on this success and those who have no background on either candidate are left in the dark...

Peters - like many others was critical of Prime Minister Olmert's failure to correctly utilize the Israeli Defense Force against Hezbollah in 2006 Lebanon and gives the IDF CLEAR WARNING ON THE WEAKNESSES of its Reserve Military forces and over reliance on technology against a trained Transnational Army.

Why buy or read the book? It's an eye opener. It shatters even my cynical 'conventional wisdom' ... and agree or disagree - Ralph Peters takes you down some foreign policy back alleys where you've never been and may never want to go back to. Put in context - and by subject - his prolific writing - in a multitude of publications can be focused in a single place and what emerges is a better policy statement than most of what Washington is currently blathering about.

Currently working as an Army Contract employee in computer simulations and modeling for BN/BDE Staff Training - I can see why Peters brings into focus the "Why We Fight" for all disaffected peoples of the world.

Read the book - if it doesn't change your mind on a multitude of issues - it will at least make you a more knowledgable dissenter ...

This is not a book that has a beginning and then an end. It's full of author's original articles that have appeared in different print media across the world. Good compilation and great points. I liked the book.

Ralph Peters belongs to the category of writers who know very little beyond a few clichés but can pretend well that they know about everything. And he writes for pretentious readers who think that know everything about the world politics (serious-looking but empty-headed folks who think that they carry the world on their shoulders). Overall, the book is a poorly researched series of biased speculations written for those who agree with his argument without even reading the book. It is nothing more than apocalyptic fear-mongering, echoing the familiar argument that the US should bomb all undemocratic countries in order to save the world for democracy. It wholeheartedly embraces the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy by force while indulging the readers in imaginative details of the world on the civilization on the brink of collapse. Overall, the book is remarkably empty.

I'm a fan of Ralph Peters, but this "book" was disappointing. All this is is a bunch of his New York Post columns reprinted. That's not a book by my definition. Not worth buying.

What time is it???

Depends on where you are these days.

Some days I wish I still had Boston's libraries nearby. I got this book through inter-library loan and this book came from south Georgia. There's not one single book in the greater Atlanta metropolitan area???

For shame!!! This book should be read before anyone in America makes a comment about Iraq or whether our troops should stay or go. Should be required reading for every literate, breathing person in my country!!!

This book is a compilation of newspaper and journal articles that Ralph Peters has written since 2006. You'll find his articles in the New York Post, USA Today, The Weekly Standard, Armchair General, and Armed Forces Journal.

His articles challenge accepted dogmas fed by the media like Iraq will be our next Vietnam, President Bush's policies in Iraq are all bad, Islam is a threat to only western civilization, and we're losing this war. He will convince you that Iraq will be Al Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours, President Bush was right to oust Saddam Hussein, Islam is a threat to itself, Iraq is not in the midst of a civil war, we and others, like the Ethiopians in Somalia, have scored significant victories against Al Qaeda!!!! Hallelujah!!! And I'm sure there must be muslims out there who are silently rejoicing at that fact.

We should never have our withdrawal, whenever it transpires, to be publicly trumpeted. Does our congress want to exterminate our army??? They're a rat pack of idiots if they do. (Yo, and it's an election year, another Hallelu!!!) Peters argues that if Iraq was in a civil war, we'd have to choose sides, but problem is, there's too many equally bad to choose from. We should withdraw, Peters says, "intelligently", if the Iraqi government and security forces continue persistently to not enforce the rule of law and mayhem prevails. Muslims kill muslims mostly in Iraq and elsewhere in the world.

"We'll get you. No matter how long it takes, we'll get you.", Peters writes in a January 10, 2007 New York Post article entitled Terrorizing Terrorists describing the latest victory against Al Qaeda in Somalia.

At home we have peace, in Iraq and elsewhere our troops are fighting a war against Al Qaeda and terrorists and countries harboring our troops welcome them. We have a professional military. We will not have another Vietnam as long as Congress will listen to our well informed, well educated, baptized in battle officers in uniform. Who am I to tell General Petraeus what to do in Iraq or Afghanistan? The world is a dangerous place what with Iranian centifuges spinning and enriching Uranium and dictators blossoming all over the globe in South East Asia, South America, Africa, and Asia. We should listen to Ralph Peters and other military experts who have served our country in uniform.

I can't tell you enough how good this book is. It informs, it enlightens, and it is prophetic in the sense that prophecy can anticipate what is likely to happen given current patterns and circumstances. The book is global in scale as its title suggests and speaks of many issues besides the Iraq War. I found out about this book from watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. Great book O'Reilly!!!

This book is an excellent read. Highly recommend it to the folks out there who say the US should quit Iraq and the follow on GWOT. Not all the ideas Peters presents are Politically Correct, however, if we are going to win the "War on Terror" then we must face the facts, and be prepared to do whats necessary to win.

No right-minded person can question that Ralph Peters is knowledgeable in the fields of military and international affairs. One can applaud Mr. Peters' desire to travel the world uncovering stories that do not make the headlines. "Wars of Blood and Faith," a collection of Mr. Peters' articles from the Armed Forces Journal, the New York Post, and other newspapers, is a product of this experience. Mr. Peters makes his various arguments in a succinct and stark fashion, making his work viscerally enjoyable for the reader.

On a substantive level, Mr. Peters makes multiple arguments that I thik need to be made in policy-making circles. There have always been sacred cows in international relations, as there are in many other fields, but the status of the world no longer permits the survival of those presently existing. We, as a nation and a people, must come to grips with the reality that wars require killing and if we do not kill our enemies they will kill us.

Mr. Peters makes the argument that diplomacy is overrated and is ill-equipped to solve the problems facing our nation in their entirety. I think that this argument is valid to a certain extent, given what has been said above regarding killing. I do not, however, think that diplomacy has no place in America's foreign policy. Not all of our enemies share an equal level of hate for this nation and those who find themselves as our enemy because of political or even economic reasons might be defeated by means other that death.

The next sacred cow of American political life that Mr. Peters argues must be sacrificed is the avoidance in mainstream discourse of cultural, social, or religious explanations for the current state of the world. To avoid offending extremists and Muslims, we state that all people desire freedom above all else, blindly (or willfully?) ignorant of the implausibility of such a statement.

On the whole I found Mr. Peters' work to be insightful and well-written. Though I disagree with his attacks on the diplomatic and academic corps, I find the remainder of his arguments to be thought-provoking and a little taste of the large dose of truth that Americans need.

Ralph Peters has a clarity of vision and a logical belief system that is as well founded in history as it is commendable, while at the same time as believable as it is shocking. A former Army intelligence officer with over 20 years of military experience he is not only incredibly knowledgable of history but has the rarer ability to actually draw lessons from it and apply them to modern situations. He is also widely traveled, and looks at the world without the pretensions of political correctness or any other ideological bent, analyzing what he sees with an acutely strategic mind.

This book is the first I have read by him and certainly won't be the last. He cuts straight to the bone with a fierce and enjoyable writing style. Wars of Blood and Faith is a collection of newspaper articles and magazine submissions written from 2006 to early 2007, thus before the surge, and is divided into several subjects ranging basically from the war on terror, to Iraq, to the Israeli war in Lebanon in 2006, to the Home Front, and finally to the wider world than the US and the Middle East. Most of these articles are trying to explain what is happening in the war on terror, and to proscribe how it should be fought. His cure for the cancer of terror and islamofacism is elegant and ruthless, shelve our concern for intrusive morality on the battlefield (such morality is uitable and indeed even necessary for civil society) and fight hard, which means killing, and fight with the knowledge that the most immoral thing that could happen would be for the west to lose this war. He brings a lot more nuance, strategic thought, and historical knowledge to bear than this, which makes his conclusions all the more sound.

As a collection of essays basically the one flaw is that several themes (including several catchphrases) are needlessly repeated, and each thought is constrained to a small number of pages. Even so many of his thought will surprise you and inform you and are very worth reading.

I hope to read more Ralph Peters books and that they are full texts and not collections of small articles since he is a thinker who clearly deserves such room to fully explain his ideas.

Highly recommended!

Strategist Ralph Peters here reveals one of the most important world trends affecting security and military concerns in our time: the shift from ideology to a violent clash between ethnicity and religion, which in turns fosters terrorism and genocide on a global scale. American foreign policy and military structures aren't prepared to adapt to this shift, Peters argues; chapters chart the growing dangers, including the proliferation of nuclear weapons enemies won't fear to use.

Diane C. Donovan
California Bookwatch

Some of the writers and thinkers I value most are those whose views are so fresh and original that I am startled when I read them. They push my frame of reference in ways I had not expected. Ralph Peters is one of those writers. I value what he has to say a great deal. Not because I agree with everything he says, but because he is committed only to thinking clearly about the military and America's place in the world. He never shades his views or analyses to favor one party or the other; or one service or the other. Bush comes in for his share of criticism, as do the Democrats.

This is a collection of articles by Peters that cover a wide range of military, foreign affairs, and domestic security topics. He never pulls his punches. What I enjoy most about his positions is that he never takes a position to help the Republicans or Democrats or the Pentagon establishment. The stands he takes are based on his own experience, his own reasoning, and he let's the grenades fall were they may.

His article on "Blood Borders" where he rethinks the borders of the Middle East is certainly a non-starter in reality (except after a huge war), but just going through the mental exercise is very much worthwhile in allowing the reader to see the situation with new eyes and recontextualize the issues.

In "Kill, Don't Capture" from July 2006, he makes clear the necessity to kill the enemy. This is one area where our "modern" age gets awfully squeamish. This quote is dead on:

"Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and would our troops, and then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse."

On September 11, 2006 he published an article about the state of the country five years after those hateful attacks. His points out the achievements we have made during those years and says:

"What should we worry about? Plenty. First, the unscrupulous nature of those in the media who always discover a dark cloud in the brightest silver lining. They're terror's cheerleaders. Second, the rabid partisanship infecting our political system - when "getting Bush" is more important than protecting our country, something's wrong." He lists the third worry as the extremism, fanaticism, and conspiracy paranoia fostered by the Internet.

His June 28, 2006 article on the public "lynching" of the marines involved in the Haditha incident is very powerful. He excoriates those who jumped to a guilty verdict. If they are found guilty, he wants them punished, but:

"Isn't it remarkable that, to the media, our troops are guilty until proven innocent, while our enemies are innocent even after they're prove guilty?"

The articles are not presented chronologically, but grouped into five parts. 1) The Twenty-First Century Military, 2) Iraq and Its Neighbors, 3) The Home Front, 4) Israel's Struggle, and 5) The World Beyond. These articles are timely, and very worthwhile. I encourage you to get and read this book. You will be able to amaze your friends with your original views and depth of knowledge.

Reviewed by Craig Matteson, Ann Arbor, MI

This is Ralph Peters' sequel to "Never Quit The Fight," published in July 2006. It follows the same format as the earlier work and is a compilation of 2-3 page essays written for various (mostly conservative) newspapers, journals, and the like. There are no references or bibliography. There is no index to this 367 page book.

The 80 articles were written from 2006 through 2007, and are arranged according to five themes, 1) The Twenty-First Century Military, 2) Iraq and Its Neighbors, 3) The Home Front, 4) Israel's Struggle and 5) The World Beyond.

Early in the book Peters expounds his central idea, which is repeated in various formulations throughout the work. "The struggles in which we are now engaged, as well as the wars that will haunt our future, are bloody manifestations of a deformed world struggling to return to its natural condition."

I think Peters' idea here bears no relation to the real world. What is the "natural condition" of the world?" "Natural?" As in prehistoric times? This type of theoretical inadequacy renders many of his interpretive concepts questionable.

As it appears later in the essays one wonders if Peters' basic idea is just another way of expressing the old left-liberal boilerplate: The Third World was living in "natural" (Peters calls it "organic') harmony within its environs. The cruel exploiters from the North disrupted this harmony, and when they left they drew "unnatural" boundaries between the tribes and clans. These unnatural boundaries "deformed" the world and caused the violence that now exists between the former "organic" units.

This analysis ignores what historical research has long since proven. Prior to the advance of the white-skinned North (globally speaking) into the dark-skinned South there were bloody dark-skinned tyrants ruling the so-called "organic" social units. These organic units were embroiled in bloody and violent power struggles within and without - fighting against other "organic" units. The problem is not colonial exploitation or lines on a map, but human nature itself. Third world peoples have been exploited by their own tyrannical leaders, both before and after the colonial period.

Yet there are many interesting perceptions in Peters book. He throws so many ideas in the air that some of them are bound to fly. His understanding of the Middle East quagmire and the U.S. role in it is described in starkly realistic terms. As he says on p. 190: "Like plenty of other Americans, I wish we could just be done with the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Middle East is not done with us. And the situation is going to get considerably worse before it shows a hint of getting better."

But mixed with clear perceptions are absolutely muddle-headed notions.

Peters devotes a mere 2 ½ pages to debunk what he calls the "Eurabia" myth. He states on p. 332 "A rash of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that , before you know it, the continent will become Eurabia..." Peters' refutation of this "myth" rests on one argument: Europeans have always been the most ferocious and bloodthirsty peoples in history.

But are Europeans still the "ethnic cleansing" murderers they once were? Obviously not. The thinkers that Peters derisively calls "pop prophets" include some very noteworthy intellectuals. They offer convincing proofs that the Europe of the Holocaust is gone.

The most notable of these is Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Middle Eastern history. In July 2004 Lewis told the conservative Hamburg-based daily Die Welt that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century "at the very latest." Other noteworthy commentators include Mark Steyn ("America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It), Brigitte Gabriel (Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America), Oriana Fallaci (The Force of Reason), Bat Ye'or (Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis), Tony Blankley (The West's Last Chance: Winning The Clash of Civilizations), Bruce Bawer (While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within).

At his best Peters brings clarity and insight to global issues. But his best does not appear often enough here. Too frequently he engages in braggadocio, caterwauling, and wrong-headed egotism. If you're familiar with Peters work and like his style of punditry, this is worth the read. Otherwise I'd steer clear of it.

This is Ralph Peters' sequel to "Never Quit The Fight," published in July 2006. It follows the same format as the earlier work and is a compilation of 2-3 page essays written for various (mostly conservative) newspapers, journals, and the like. There are no references or bibliography. There is no index to this 367 page book.

The 80 articles were written from 2006 through 2007, and are arranged according to five themes, 1) The Twenty-First Century Military, 2) Iraq and Its Neighbors, 3) The Home Front, 4) Israel's Struggle and 5) The World Beyond.

Early in the book Peters expounds his central idea, which is repeated in various formulations throughout the work. "The struggles in which we are now engaged, as well as the wars that will haunt our future, are bloody manifestations of a deformed world struggling to return to its natural condition."

I think Peters' idea here bears no relation to the real world. What is the "natural condition" of the world?" "Natural?" As in prehistoric times? This type of theoretical inadequacy renders many of his interpretive concepts questionable.

As it appears later in the essays one wonders if Peters' basic idea is just another way of expressing the old left-liberal boilerplate: The Third World was living in "natural" (Peters calls it "organic') harmony within its environs. The cruel exploiters from the North disrupted this harmony, and when they left they drew "unnatural" boundaries between the tribes and clans. These unnatural boundaries "deformed" the world and caused the violence that now exists between the former "organic" units.

This analysis ignores what historical research has long since proven. Prior to the advance of the white-skinned North (globally speaking) into the dark-skinned South there were bloody dark-skinned tyrants ruling the so-called "organic" social units. These organic units were embroiled in bloody and violent power struggles within and without - fighting against other "organic" units. The problem is not colonial exploitation or lines on a map, but human nature itself. Third world peoples have been exploited by their own tyrannical leaders, both before and after the colonial period.

There are many interesting and perceptive ideas in Peters' book. His understanding of the Middle East quagmire and the U.S. role in it is described in starkly realistic terms. As he says on p. 190: "Like plenty of other Americans, I wish we could just be done with the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Middle East is not done with us. And the situation is going to get considerably worse before it shows a hint of getting better."

But mixed with clear perceptions are absolutely muddle-headed notions.

Peters devotes a mere 2 ½ pages to debunk what he calls the "Eurabia" myth. He states on p. 332 "A rash of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that , before you know it, the continent will become Eurabia..." Peters' refutation of this "myth" rests on one argument: Europeans have always been the most ferocious and bloodthirsty peoples in history.

But are Europeans still the "ethnic cleansing" murderers they once were? Obviously not. The thinkers that Peters derisively calls "pop prophets" include some very noteworthy intellectuals. They offer convincing proofs that the Europe of the Holocaust is gone.

The most notable of these is Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Middle Eastern history. In July 2004 Lewis told the conservative Hamburg-based daily Die Welt that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century "at the very latest." Other noteworthy commentators include Mark Steyn ("America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It), Brigitte Gabriel (Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America), Oriana Fallaci (The Force of Reason), Bat Ye'or (Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis), Tony Blankley (The West's Last Chance: Winning The Clash of Civilizations), Bruce Bawer (While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within).

At his best Peters brings clarity and insight to global issues. But his best does not appear often enough here. Too frequently he engages in braggadocio, caterwauling, and wrong-headed egotism. If you're familiar with Peters work and like his style of punditry, this is worth the read. Otherwise I'd steer clear of it.

This is Ralph Peters' sequel to "Never Quit The Fight," published in July 2006. It follows the same format as the earlier work and is a compilation of 2-3 page essays written for various (mostly conservative) newspapers, journals, and the like. There are no references or bibliography. There is no index to this 367 page book.

The 80 articles were written from 2006 through 2007, and are arranged according to five themes, 1) The Twenty-First Century Military, 2) Iraq and Its Neighbors, 3) The Home Front, 4) Israel's Struggle and 5) The World Beyond.

Early in the book Peters expounds his central idea, which is repeated in various formulations throughout the work. "The struggles in which we are now engaged, as well as the wars that will haunt our future, are bloody manifestations of a deformed world struggling to return to its natural condition."

I think Peters' idea here bears no relation to the real world. What is the "natural condition" of the world?" "Natural?" As in prehistoric times? This type of theoretical inadequacy renders many of his interpretive concepts questionable.

As it appears later in the essays one wonders if Peters' basic idea is just another way of expressing the old left-liberal boilerplate: The Third World was living in "natural" (Peters calls it "organic') harmony within its environs. The cruel exploiters from the North disrupted this harmony, and when they left they drew "unnatural" boundaries between the tribes and clans. These unnatural boundaries "deformed" the world and caused the violence that now exists between the former "organic" units.

This analysis ignores what historical research has long since proven. Prior to the advance of the white-skinned North into the dark-skinned South there were bloody dark-skinned tyrants ruling the so-called "organic" social units. These organic units were embroiled in bloody and violent power struggles within and without - fighting against other "organic" units. The problem is not colonial exploitation or lines on a map, but human nature itself. Third world peoples have been exploited by their own tyrannical leaders, both before and after the colonial period.

There are many interesting and perceptive ideas in Peters' book. His understanding of the Middle East quagmire and the U.S. role in it is described in starkly realistic terms. As he says on p. 190: "Like plenty of other Americans, I wish we could just be done with the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Middle East is not done with us. And the situation is going to get considerably worse before it shows a hint of getting better."

But mixed with clear perceptions are absolutely muddle-headed notions.

Peters devotes a mere 2 ½ pages to debunk what he calls the "Eurabia" myth. He states on p. 332 "A rash of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that , before you know it, the continent will become Eurabia..." Peters' refutation of this "myth" rests on one argument: Europeans have always been the most ferocious and bloodthirsty peoples in history.

But are Europeans still the "ethnic cleansing" murderers they once were? Obviously not. The thinkers that Peters derisively calls "pop prophets" include some very noteworthy intellectuals. They offer convincing proofs that the Europe of the Holocaust is gone.

The most notable of these is Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Middle Eastern history. In July 2004 Lewis told the conservative Hamburg-based daily Die Welt that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century "at the very latest." Other noteworthy commentators include Mark Steyn ("America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It), Brigitte Gabriel (Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America), Oriana Fallaci (The Force of Reason), Bat Ye'or (Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis), Tony Blankley (The West's Last Chance: Winning The Clash of Civilizations), Bruce Bawer (While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within).

At his best Peters brings clarity and insight to global issues. But his best does not appear often enough here. Too frequently he engages in braggadocio, caterwauling, and wrong-headed egotism. If you're familiar with Peters work and like his style of punditry, this is worth the read. Otherwise I'd steer clear of it.

This is Ralph Peters' sequel to "Never Quit The Fight," published in July 2006. It follows the same format as the earlier work and is a compilation of 2-3 page essays written for various (mostly conservative) newspapers, journals, and the like. There are no references or bibliography. There is no index to this 367 page book.

The 80 articles were written from 2006 through 2007, and are arranged according to five themes, 1) The Twenty-First Century Military, 2) Iraq and Its Neighbors, 3) The Home Front, 4) Israel's Struggle and 5) The World Beyond.

Early in the book Peters expounds his central idea, which is repeated in various formulations throughout the work. "The struggles in which we are now engaged, as well as the wars that will haunt our future, are bloody manifestations of a deformed world struggling to return to its natural condition."

I think Peters' idea here bears no relation to the real world. What is the "natural condition" of the world?" "Natural?" As in prehistoric times? This type of theoretical inadequacy renders many of his interpretive concepts questionable.

As it appears later in the essays one wonders if Peters' basic idea is just another way of expressing the old left-liberal boilerplate: The Third World was living in "natural" (Peters calls it "organic') harmony within its environs. The cruel exploiters from the North disrupted this harmony, and when they left they drew "unnatural" boundaries between the tribes and clans. These unnatural boundaries "deformed" the world and caused the violence that now exists between the former "organic" units.

This analysis ignores what historical research has long since proven. Prior to the advance of the white-skinned North into the dark-skinned South there were bloody dark-skinned tyrants ruling the so-called "organic" social units. These organic units were embroiled in bloody and violent power struggles within and without - fighting against other "organic" units. The problem is not colonial exploitation or lines on a map, but human nature itself. Third world peoples have been exploited by their own tyrannical leaders, both before and after the colonial period.

There are many interesting and perceptive ideas in Peters' book. His understanding of the Middle East quagmire and the U.S. role in it is described in starkly realistic terms. As he says on p. 190: "Like plenty of other Americans, I wish we could just be done with the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Middle East is not done with us. And the situation is going to get considerably worse before it shows a hint of getting better."

But mixed with clear perceptions are absolutely muddle-headed notions.

Peters devotes 2 ½ pages to debunk what he calls the "Eurabia" myth. He states on p. 332 "A rash of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that , before you know it, the continent will become Eurabia..." Peters' refutation of this "myth" rests on one argument: Europeans have always been the most ferocious and bloodthirsty peoples in history.

But are Europeans still the "ethnic cleansing" murderers they once were? Obviously not. The thinkers that Peters derisively calls "pop prophets" include some very noteworthy intellectuals. They offer convincing proofs that the Europe of the Holocaust is gone.

The most notable of these is Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, the doyen of Middle Eastern history. In July 2004 Lewis told the conservative Hamburg-based daily Die Welt that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century "at the very latest." Other noteworthy commentators include Mark Steyn ("America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It), Brigitte Gabriel (Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America), Oriana Fallaci (The Force of Reason), Bat Ye'or (Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis), Tony Blankley (The West's Last Chance: Winning The Clash of Civilizations), Bruce Bawer (While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within).

At his best Peters brings clarity and insight to global issues. But his best does not appear often enough. Too often he engages in braggadocio, caterwauling, and wrong-headed egotism. I don't recommend this book.

LTC Peters does it again. This book is a good bit drier than his earliest nonfiction and fiction works, but he succedes in producing a thorough analysis of what is going on today in the wider world, in particular the US military (mis)adventures in Iraq. Peters has done his homework and field trips, and has made a number of very astute comments on the current situation i Iraq as of the surge, succeeding in analysis where too many elected officials on both sides of the isle have failed. If you want to know what is going on in IRaq, and how the surge is succeding in certain key aspects, while dismally failing in other regards that neither political faction seems to be willing comment upo, then you need to read Peters. Nothing that he says has ever been factually incorrect, and he makes the best analysis's possibilty, given that political science theory has largely failed to create a valid model for today's climate. If you want to know about what is going on today, and how it will effect you children and grandchildren, read this book.

As I read through the author's collection of articles in book format, I wished that it were required reading for each and every one of our 2008 presidential candidates. Aside from the fact that Peters is an absolutely brilliant writer, he lays out under one cover the status quo and history of violence across the world. How could one man know so much, says I! He hits hard at our leadership and is honest in his assessments, giving credit when it is due, and delivering gut punches when it is not. For an understanding of today's world in conflict, this is the one to read -- enthralling, informative, and encouraging. It is a book I will put on my shelf and return to, again and again.

"Wars of Blood & Faith" is another of Ralph Peters' collections of previously published columns put into book form. On this note, the book is a let-down because there is little new material that a subscription to the New York Post or a monthly check-in with the Armed Forces Journal website hasn't already posted.

But for his fantastic writing he must be given full credit, and as in his previous collections and works he continues to remain tightly focused on his message that globalization isn't bringing the majority of humanity together but apart--save for the new globalized, corporate aristocracy--, life is essentially a Hobbesian struggle, the plague of corruption is a deadly ill that makes other problems even worse, we need to be geopolitically patient and let China, Hugo Chavez and other rogue or less-liked regimes fail on their own while we as a country build ties with other countries who stand to offer a lot more (political) friendship and common cause than such "stalwart," forward-thinking and democracy-loving allies like Saudi Arabia, and that the large swathe of civilization residing in the Islamic heartlands--save the Israelis--is largely in collapse and a hopeless mess. A major theme of his that does not get treated this time around, the emancipation of women around the world, does not get its own section but is mentioned enough throughout the book for the reader to realize this is one of the author's main ideas for securing a better future for humanity.

The articles and columns are indeed thought-provoking, and some of Mr. Peters' predictions and analyses are coming to light if one pays attention to the news. His observation that the Chinese are not liked in Africa and abroad for their callous business dealings with shady regimes, like Sudan or Zimbabwe, is starting to generate small headlines in the global media. Peters offers different views from a different angle on a variety of issues: from his take on globalization as a socially dividing force, to his gritted-teeth note that the global media is now essentially a combatant in war zones that can indeed effect a battlefield victory or defeat based on activist journalism (First Battle of Fallujah, anyone?) and his belief that Europeans may some day pull out their old tricks of genocide and ethnic cleansing to deal with immigrant populations they don't want to assimilate or want, period. Only one essay can only be described as really out of whack: "Plan B for Iraq." Thought-provoking yes, but the whole side comment about Venezuela was a bit much. The controversial "Blood Borders" essay makes an appearance here as well.

The best feature of the book is the author's optimism, cautious in some areas but there nevertheless. There are parts of the world that offer hope and allies, if we approach these areas from a position of mutual respect. Africa is beginning to stand up for itself, though the going will be slow. Latin America offers plenty of allies, we simply have to let the new Caudillos fail on their own while demonstrating that democracy does work (requires work on our part, too). These are more of the alternative viewpoints that the drones in Washington should take into consideration. Again, a bit of a let-down for lack of new material but a tightly-focused effort and worth the time for the author's writing ability alone.

Wars of Blood and Faith contains 78 carefully-selected, hard-hitting articles the author published in 2006-2007 in the New York Post, Armed Forces Journal, USA Today, Washington Monthly, The Weekly Standard, Military Review, RealClearPolitics.com, and Armchair General magazine. Individually, as originally published, each essay provided plenty of food for thought - now, read as a book in this superb collection by publisher Stackpole, it's a real feast!
Peters', today's most insightful, clear-headed strategic thinker, includes a revelatory introductory essay that, alone, is well worth the price of the book. He shatters the mythology so dear to the hearts of America's "ruling elite" that "all men want peace, with its corollary fantasies of bloodless war and a lawyer's faith in negotiations." These through-the-looking-glass assumptions belong to the now-past Age of Ideology, a two hundred year "aberrant period in history ... a time of unaccountable mass delusion, when human beings convinced themselves that individuals could reason out a better architecture for human societies than human collectives could arrive at organically." Peters perceptively reveals that "we have returned to the historical mainstream, abandoning conflicts over artificial systems of social organizations in favor of strife provoked by those ineradicable causes, religion and ethnicity ... the bleeding over political systems is largely finished; we have returned to the historical norm of wars of blood and belief." The age of wars over "isms" (fascism, nationalism, Communism, Nazism, etc.) is over - it's tribe versus tribe in a war to the death. The enemy's preferred strategy is no longer one of winning hearts and minds; that's been replaced by one calling for a knife to the heart and a bullet to the brain. Our leaders' failure to comprehend that represents little more than national suicide.
Yet, don't assume that the sole value of Wars of Blood and Faith lies only in its sorely-needed wake-up call that we must realize our survival depends upon - quite literally -- killing our enemies before they kill us. Peters' prescient, timely and carefully-crafted articles cover the world, explaining in the author's trademark crystal-clear, Hemingway-esque style the myriad of critical security issues that confront America and the West around the globe. Although many of the book's essays address the Iraq War's military and political issues (including its domestic and international fall-out), Peters razor-sharp analysis looks beyond the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan to encompass such far-flung places as China, Nigeria, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Somalia, and Darfur. With continuing worldwide experience in 70 countries, Peters is no stay-at-home "studio pundit" - the book includes first-hand reporting from the front lines in Iraq and Israel's war with Hezbollah. Ralph Peters knows what he's talking about. More important, he's not afraid to "go public" by sharing that unequaled experience with the reading public in his perceptive essays. As a result, Wars of Blood and Faith is a cogent, desperately-needed wake up call to Peters' fellow citizens. Since, as the author notes, our "ruling elite" leaders in Washington seem "afraid to think -- because many of the answers are terrifying," he's taking his case directly to those who elect them. "The goal of the many essays and columns in this book," Peters explains, "is to provoke the complacent, to challenge the (deadly) traditional wisdom, and to encourage Americans to think for themselves." One fervently hopes they will. Clearly, reading Wars of Blood and Faith is a great way to give those complacent brains a much-needed "jump-start." Buy it. Read it. Share it.

Ralph Peters is one of a handful of individuals whose every work I must read. See some others I recommend at the end of this review. Ralph stands alone as a warrior-philosopher who actually walks the trail, reads the sign, and offers up ground truth.

This book is deep look at the nuances and the dangers of what he calls the wars of blood and faith. The introduction is superb, and frames the book by highlighting these core matters:

* Washington has forgotten how to think.
* The age of ideology is over. Ethnic identity will rule.
* Globalization has contradictory effects. Internet spreads hatred and dangerous knowledge (e.g. how to make an improvised explosive device).
* The post-colonial era has begun.
* Women's freedom is the defining issue of our time.
* There is no way to wage a bloodless war.
* The media can now determine the war's outcome. I don't agree with the author on everything, this is one such case. If the government does not lie, the cause is just, and the endeavor is effectively managed, We the People can be steadfast.

A couple of expansions. I recently posted a list of the top ten timeless books at the request of a Stanford '09, and i7 includes Philip Allott's The Health of Nations: Society and Law beyond the State. Deeper in the book the author has an item on Blood Borders, and it tallies perfectly with Allott's erudite view that the Treaty of Westphalia was a huge mistake--instead of creating artificial states (5000 distinct ethnic groups crammed into 189+ artificial political entities) we should have gone instead with Peoples and especially Indigenous Peoples whose lands and resources could not be stolen, only negotiated for peacefully. Had the USA not squandered a half trillion dollars and so many lives and so much good will, a global truth and reconciliation commission, combined with a free cell phone to every woman among the five billion poor (see next paragraph) could conceivably have achieved a peaceful reinvigoration of the planet with liberty and justice for peoples rather than power and wealth for a handful.

The author's views on the importance of women stem from decades of observation and are supported by Michael O'Hanlon's book, A Half Penny on the Federal Dollar: The Future of Development Aid, in which he documents that the single best return on investment for any dollar is in the education of women. They tend to be secular, appreciate sanitation and nutrition and moderation in all things. The men are more sober, responsible, and productive when their women are educated. THIS, not unilateral militarism, virtual colonialism, and predatory immoral capitalism, should be the heart of our foreign policy.

The book is organized into sections I was not expecting but that both make sense, and add to the whole. Part I is 17 short pieces addressing the Twenty-First Century Military. Here the author focuses on the strategic, lambastes Rumsfeld for not listening, and generally overlooks the fact that all our generals and admirals failed to be loyal to the Constitution and instead accepted illegal orders based on lies.

In Part II, Iraq and Its Neighbors, we have 24 pieces. The best piece by far in terms of provocative strategic value is "Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look." Curiously he does not address Syria or Lebanon, but I expect he will since the Syrians just evacuated Lebanon and Syria and Iran appear to be planning for a pincer movement on Baghdad after they cut the ground supply line from Kuwait.

A handful of pieces, 5 in all, are grouped in Part III, The Home Front. The best two for me were "Our Strategic Intelligence Problem" in which he points out that more money and more technology are NOT going to make us smarter, it is humans with history, culture, language, and eyes on the target that will tease out the nuances no satellite can handle. He also points out how easily our satellites are deceived. I share his anguish in the piece on "Lynching the Marines." I called and emailed the Colonel at HQMC in charge of the defense, and offered a heat stress defense that I had just learned about from a NASA engineer helping firefighters. If the body gets too hot, the brain starts to fry, and irrational behavior is the norm. The Colonel declined to acknowledge. That told me all I needed to know about how the Marines were all too eager to hang their own.

Part V was the most unfamiliar to me, covering Israel and Hezbollah. In 17 pieces, the author, an avowed supporter of Israel, pulls no punches, tarring and feathering the Israelis for being corrupt (selling off their military supplies on the black market (to whom, one wonders, since the only people in the market are terrorists?) confident the US will resupply them) and militarily and politically incompetent. To which I would add economically stupid and morally challenged--Stealing 50% of the water Israel uses to do farming that is under 5% of the GDP is both nuts and short-sighted. See the brief by Chuck Spinney at OSS.Net.

Part V, The World Beyond, is a philosophical tour of the horizon, from water wars and plagues (see my lists for books on each of the ten threats, twelve policies, and eight challengers), to precision knifing of Russia, France, and Europe. Darfur, one of over 15 genocides being ignored right now (Darfur because Sudan pretends to be helping on terrorism and the US does not have the will or the means to be effective there) is touched on.

The book ends marvelously with a piece on "The Return of the Tribes," a piece that emphasizes the role of religion and the exclusivity of cults and specific localized tribes. They don't want to be integrated nor do they want new members.

Robert Young Pelton's The World's Most Dangerous Places: 5th Edition (Robert Young Pelton the World's Most Dangerous Places)
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude
Deliver Us from Evil: Peacekeepers, Warlords and a World of Endless Conflict
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project)
The Fifty-Year Wound: How America's Cold War Victory Has Shaped Our World
Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict With a New Introduction by the Author
Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy

Ralph Peters is one of a handful of individuals whose every work I must read. See some others I recommend at the end of this review. Ralph stands alone as a warrior-philosopher who actually walks the trail, reads the sign, and offers up ground truth.

This book is deep look at the nuances and the dangers of what he calls the wars of blood and faith. The introduction is superb, and frames the book by highlights these core matters:

* Washington has forgotten how to think.
* The age of ideology is over. Ethnic identity will rule.
* Globalization has contradictory effects. Internet spreads hatred and dangerous knowledge (e.g. how to make an improvised explosive device).
* The post-colonial era has begun.
* Women's freedom is the defining issue of our time.
* There is no way to wage a bloodless war.
* The media can now determine the war's outcome. I don't agree with the author on everything, this is one such case. If the government does not lie, the cause is just, and the endeavor is effectively managed, We the People can be steadfast.

A couple of expansions. I recently posted a list of the top ten timeless books at the request of a Stanford '09, and i7 includes Philip Allott's The Health of Nations: Society and Law beyond the State. Deeper in the book the author has an item on Blood Borders, and it tallies perfectly with Allott's erudite view that the Treaty of Westphalia was a huge mistake--instead of creating artificial states (5000 distinct ethnic groups crammed into 189+ artificial political entities) we should have gone instead with Peoples and especially Indigenous Peoples whose lands and resources could not be stolen, only negotiated for peacefully. Had the USA not squandered a half trillion dollars and so many lives and so much good will, a global truth and reconciliation commission, combined with a free cell phone to every woman among the five billion poor (see next paragraph) could conceivably have achieved a peaceful reinvigoration of the planet with liberty and justice for peoples rather than power and wealth for a handful.

The author's views on the importance of women stem from decades of observation and are supported by Michael O'Hanlon's book, A Half Penny on the Federal Dollar: The Future of Development Aid, in which he documents that the single best return on investment for any dollar is in the education of women. They tend to be secular, appreciate sanitation and nutrition and moderation in all things. The men are more sober, responsible, and productive when their women are educated. THIS, not unilateral militarism, virtual colonialism, and predatory immoral capitalism, should be the heart of our foreign policy.

The book is organized into sections I was not expecting but that both make sense, and add to the whole. Part I is 17 short pieces addressing the Twenty-First Century Military. Here the author focuses on the strategic, lambastes Rumsfeld for not listening, and generally overlooks the fact that all our generals and admirals failed to be loyal to the Constitution and instead accepted illegal orders based on lies.

In Part II, Iraq and Its Neighbors, we have 24 pieces. The best piece by far in terms of provocative strategic value is "Blood Borders: How a Better Middle East Would Look." Curiously he does not address Syria or Lebanon, but I expect he will since the Syrians just evacuated Lebanon and Syria and Iran appear to be planning for a pincer movement on Baghdad after they cut the ground supply line from Kuwait.

A handful of pieces, 5 in all, are grouped in Part III, The Home Front. The best two for me were "Our Strategic Intelligence Problem" in which he points out that more money and more technology are NOT going to make us smarter, it is humans with history, culture, language, and eyes on the target that will tease out the nuances no satellite can handle. He also points out how easily our satellites are deceived. I share his anguish in the piece on "Lynching the Marines." I called the Colonel at HQMC in charge of the defense, and offered a heat stress defense that I had just learned about from a NASA engineer helping firefighters. If the body gets too hot, the brain starts to fry, and irrational behavior is the norm. The Colonel never called me back. That told me all I needed to know about how the Marines were all too eager to hang their own.

Part V was the most unfamiliar to me, covering Israel and Hezbollah. In 17 pieces, the author, an avowed supporter of Israel, pulls no punches, tarring and feathering the Israelis for being corrupt (selling off their military supplies on the black market (to whom, one wonders, since the only people in the market are terrorists?) confident the US will resupply them) and militarily and politically incompetent. To which I would add economically stupid and morally challenged--Stealing 50% of the water Israel uses to do farming that is under 5% of the GDP is both nuts and short-sighted. See the brief by Chuck Spinney at OSS.Net.

Part V, The World Beyond, is a philosophical tour of the horizon, from water wars and plagues (see my lists for books on each of the ten threats, twelve policies, and eight challengers), to precision knifing of Russia, France, and Europe. Darfur, one of over 15 genocides being ignored right now (Darfur because Sudan pretends to be helping on terrorism and the US does not have the will or the means to be effective there) is touched on.

The book ends marvelously with a piece on "The Return of the Tribes," a piece that emphasizes the role of religion and the exclusivity of cults and specific localized tribes. They don't want to be integrated nor do they want new members.

Robert Young Pelton's The World's Most Dangerous Places: 5th Edition (Robert Young Pelton the World's Most Dangerous Places)
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude
Deliver Us from Evil: Peacekeepers, Warlords and a World of Endless Conflict
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA
The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project)
The Fifty-Year Wound: How America's Cold War Victory Has Shaped Our World
Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict With a New Introduction by the Author
Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy

Ralph Peters latest book is a must read for all those who want a realistic glimpse of the future--and it isn't pretty. It is a world far from the dreamers who infest our media, academis, political parties and business world. No ostrich ever saved his skin by keeping his head in the sand. Our aforementioned ostriches better pull their head out of the sand, and other places as well, wake up and face reality. Wars of Blood and Faith is a must step in the right direction.

Ralph Peters is likely the premier observer and commentator on the world's most vexing problems and challenges and this volume is a worthy successor to his previous works. Neither a kibitzer nor a naif, Peters is a veteran, professional soldier, a keen observer, and a no-holds barred critic. There are many who will dispute Peters' views but none can come close to duplicating his depth of knowledge or his informed and insightful views. The world is full of reporters and commentators who will opine from afar and profess to hold all the answers -- Peters won't. He'll express vexation, describe situations and parties to problems, draw from the lessons of history, and propose solutions, alternatives or invite further study of the situation. More to the point, unlike those who propose to set the nation's agenda in either Congress or the media, his opinions are backed by first person experience and exposure -- he's been there, done that. India, Somalia, Bosnia, Tajikistan, Israel, Kurdistan, Iraq -- he's been there, on the ground, living with and listening to those who call these trouble-spots home. For the interested, discerning reader who wishes a more informed and intelligent view of a world in upheaval this work is a must read.