Sign in with Facebook
Ryan's Reviews > The 33 Strategies of War
The 33 Strategies of War
by
by
This book is lousy. I was constantly amazed at the author's ability to say absolutely nothing through so much of the book. If you like pseudo-philosophical catch phrases like "If you want to win a battle, fight your battle to win" Ok, I just made that up, but it would have gone along fine in the book. It's filled with all these pithy says that really don't inform the reader of anything.
Its one saving grace are the stories interspersed to highlight the points Greene is making. Many of them are good, even the ones I already knew from paying attention in history class (or reading them in other history books). The problem is while about half of them are actually about war, the other half are about politicians, Hollywood moguls, and other people whom the author deems "strategic". His point (in the preface, and throughout the book) is that each of us fight war even though most of us aren't soldiers, we face in everyday life situations which we need to have a plan of attack or our enemies will destroy us.
The glaring thing is virtually none of the politicians he focuses on are conservative (he does talk about Eisenhower, but only as a general; and Margaret Thatcher), he spends an inordinate amount of time telling the reader how smart Roosevelt and Clinton were. I'm sorry I tend to notice things which are lop-sided politically. But he talks about Nazi tactics alongside allied tactics, Napoleonic tactics alongside Horatio Nelson where is the bipartisan spirit? Either talk about all the politicians or leave modern politics out of it.
The book would have been much better if it was all stories and only organized into the 33 strategies with a one sentence introduction to each strategy. But to be fair, it's a self help book, and I typically can't read self help books because of all the pithy pseudo-psych stuff in them (as described in the first paragraph). They are either unbearably vague or glaringly obvious and sometimes both. Also to be fair, I didn't finish the book. I got to about strategy 19 before I just gave up. Who knows, maybe he was saving the Reagan and Bush stories for the later strategies. I guess I'll never know.
Its one saving grace are the stories interspersed to highlight the points Greene is making. Many of them are good, even the ones I already knew from paying attention in history class (or reading them in other history books). The problem is while about half of them are actually about war, the other half are about politicians, Hollywood moguls, and other people whom the author deems "strategic". His point (in the preface, and throughout the book) is that each of us fight war even though most of us aren't soldiers, we face in everyday life situations which we need to have a plan of attack or our enemies will destroy us.
The glaring thing is virtually none of the politicians he focuses on are conservative (he does talk about Eisenhower, but only as a general; and Margaret Thatcher), he spends an inordinate amount of time telling the reader how smart Roosevelt and Clinton were. I'm sorry I tend to notice things which are lop-sided politically. But he talks about Nazi tactics alongside allied tactics, Napoleonic tactics alongside Horatio Nelson where is the bipartisan spirit? Either talk about all the politicians or leave modern politics out of it.
The book would have been much better if it was all stories and only organized into the 33 strategies with a one sentence introduction to each strategy. But to be fair, it's a self help book, and I typically can't read self help books because of all the pithy pseudo-psych stuff in them (as described in the first paragraph). They are either unbearably vague or glaringly obvious and sometimes both. Also to be fair, I didn't finish the book. I got to about strategy 19 before I just gave up. Who knows, maybe he was saving the Reagan and Bush stories for the later strategies. I guess I'll never know.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The 33 Strategies of War.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
October 8, 2009
– Shelved
October 8, 2009
– Shelved as:
military
Started Reading
October 9, 2009
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-12 of 12 (12 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Justin
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Sep 22, 2011 11:28AM
Just lol @ your review. Fucking LOL. I'm sure you vote for the party and not the person.
reply
|
flag
Justin wrote: "Just lol @ your review. Fucking LOL. I'm sure you vote for the party and not the person."I rate books based on what I liked (or disliked) about them. I don't expect everyone to agree. If I rate a book negatively I like to explain why in case it can help someone decide whether or not they'd like the book.
As to your final thought, I vote for the conservative candidate regardless of party. Usually that means Republican, but occasionally Libertarian or Constitutional. A politician chooses a party and their choice factors into what kind of politics they agree with, so I don't believe it's unreasonable to factor that in on voting.
Here is a quote from an interview Greene did with the New Yorker He is also eager to get into politics. “I'd like to be the Karl Rove of the Democratic Party,” Greene said. So it seems to me he's picked his party too.
Read more
I love the book but I see your point.
Yep, you didn't get to the Bush part, because only in the last section he covers dirty warfare.
So what is it about this current war that is more dirty than the others? Don't get me wrong I'm not defending Bush, personally I think he's too liberal. Which brings up an interesting point. With the exception of George HW Bush who was also quite liberal, every war in the previous century was started by democrats.WWI - 1917 Woodrow Wilson (D)
WWII - 1941 Franklin Roosevelt (D)
Korean War - 1950 Harry Truman (D)
Vietnam War - 1965 Lyndon Johnson (D)
Gulf War - 1990 George HW Bush (R)
So I guess in that respect it makes sense that Greene doesn't cover a lot of republicans.
There are of course the two classics in this subject. Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince and Sun Tzu's The Art of War. Any other book you read on strategy pays homage to one or both of these two. As for the one thing I did like about Greene's book, the stories, you can find them in any biography or auto-biography of any military commander, politician, or businessman. I could name a few like Julius Caesar, Winston Churchill, or Andrew Carnegie, but you're best off picking someone you admire and reading a biography of them. It seems to me that all Greene did was read a few biographies and pick out 33 points that seemed common among them. Also as I pointed out in my first reply, I don't expect everyone to agree with my review, a lot of people like this book and I don't consider anyone stupid for doing so. Perhaps I would have a different opinion I had read this book before reading The Prince and The Art of War plus all the biographies and military histories I've read
Everyone has their own opinion and they are entitled to speak on it, although i dissagree with you ryan that doesnt make you wrong. But one things you are right about is "The art of war" the best book but if i were you i would read "the 50th law" written by Robert greene and 50 cent..it is my bible next to my holy bible this book shouldnt dissapoint you.
"He spends an inordinate amount of time telling the reader how smart Roosevelt and Clinton were." When does Robert Greene mention Clinton?
i get that, but moreso in 48 Laws of Power
So, did you read the cover and then set the book down to write a review longer than what you read? Literally in the Preface he outlines 6 fundamental ideals that are crucial to understanding strategy and how to approach situations, which immediately undercuts your entire review. Also, the book is 448 pages of in depth review from experience, and the volume of pages alone rates 3 stars, regardless of the contents—haha! So, I’d rate your review zero stars. Thanks for the entertainment, Ryan.
Ryan wrote: "With the exception of George HW Bush who was also quite liberal, every war in the previous century was started by democrats.WWI - 1917 Woodrow Wilson (D)
WWII - 1941 Franklin Roosevelt (D)
Korean War - 1950 Harry Truman (D)
Vietnam War - 1965 Lyndon Johnson (D)
Gulf War - 1990 George HW Bush (R)"
WWI started in 1914. The US didn't join the war until 1917, after Germany sank a few American ships and Wilson declared war upon Germany. To say that Wilson "started" the war is, at best, very misguided.
WWII started in 1939. The US didn't join the war until after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941. If you're American, you should know this. Plus, what you may not know is that Germany and Italy declared war on the US before the US joined the war. So it is completely ridiculous to say that FDR started WWII.
The Korean War started when North Korea (supported by the USSR and China) invaded South Korea (supported by the US and UN forces) and refused demands for an immediate withdrawal by the UN. In what way did Harry Truman "start" the Korean War? He definitely started the intervention, but it is, once again, ridiculous to say that he started the war.
In 1950, it was Harry Truman that first authorized financial support and a "Military Assistance Advisory Group" to be sent to Vietnam to fight communist forces, though the advisory group was (as least supposedly) non-combatant. The official beginning of American involvement in the war, according to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, was when Eisenhower sent the MAAG back to Vietnam with the express purpose of training their armed forces. You could certainly make the argument that Truman started the ball rolling towards intervention, but it officially started (by today's standards, though I don't believe it was public at the time) under Eisenhower, so claiming that LBJ started the conflict is ridiculous. It was either the Republican POTUS Eisenhower (as the official record states) or Truman, who a reasonable argument could be made for "starting" the intervention. (Also, there is evidence that Nixon, while still in the Senate, reached out to foreign governments to delay any peace agreements while he was running for POTUS so that he could run on a platform of ending the war. So if you have a problem with interventions, you should have a huge problem with his backdoor dealings to continue the intervention for personal gain, though I'm sure Mr. Greene would approve.)
And, in fairness to HW Bush, Iraq "started" the Gulf War when they invaded and annexed Kuwait. HW did play a large role in rallying support for an intervention that the US ultimately led. Unlike the two World Wars, his hand was not directly forced into intervention by attacks upon the US or its people. Unless you also disagree with W Bush's wars following 9/11, you shouldn't have any problem with Wilson or FDR going to war after US citizens were killed while being a non-participant in two- and three-year-old wars.
So as a final tally, the US started none of the five wars you cited. Two Democrats had their hands directly forced into action by attacks that killed US citizens; they "started" nothing. One Democrat, with the backing of the UN and their forces, was supporting an ally that was invaded by communist forces (including the USSR and China) and would not have survived without intervention. That same Democrat kind of started the ball rolling towards intervention in Vietnam, but paled in comparison to the efforts of the Republican that followed him. And one Republican started an intervention on behalf of a country that had just been invaded and annexed.
None of the actual wars themselves were started by the US. One intervention was definitely started by a Democrat, one was definitely started by a Republican, a third was technically started by a Democrat but only became anything significant under a Republican, and the other two were imposed upon us. I hope this clears a few things up for you.
Point well taken, I should have said: "...every war began during the presidency of ..." My point still stands though, in a book discussing war it's natural to cover presidents who presided during war and ignore those who didn't. And Democrat presidents presided over more wars than Republican presidents.But just for further clarity, When the US under Wilson and then FDR were shipping arms to Europe before both wars, and FDR freezing Japan's assets and instituting an oil embargo, it gets more and more fuzzy to say who started what. It all depends on how you define "act of war".
