M-Dub Gonna Knit Ya

The Knitting Answer Book
By: Margaret Radcliffe
Publisher: Storey Publishing (2005)
ISBN: 1580175996 (paperback: alk. paper)

Truth in advertising exists! The sub-title to The Knitting Answer Book reads: “Solutions to Every Problem You’ll Ever Face. Answers to Every Question You’ll Ever Ask.” I can’t speak to the future, but in my (admittedly very limited) past experience with hand-knitting, Margaret Radcliffe’s Answer Book did indeed answer every question I asked and sorted me through every problem I faced. Even better, I was able to consult it: in Bucharest, in the basement at my Dad’s house at 0200 hrs, all over my Mom’s house at all hours of the day and night, while sitting in the Red Carpet Club at the C Gates at Dulles, repeatedly through an IAD-MUC flight on United, and at countless other times over the last year or so. The point being, of course, that this little tome is eminently portable, even for a guy who doesn’t carry a dedicated knitting bag or purse. It lived very happily in the outer pockets of my backpack and jacket with no fuss. Roughly the length and width of my hand and weighing in at about 14 ounces, the book is pint-sized technical support for a knitter.

Now, I’m not a knitter. I’ve knit one complete project and will probably do a few more just ‘cause it’s relaxing and productive and because the woman I adore is rather into the whole yarn and needles thing. I still look at her rubbing some sticks together with string mixed in, see something useful emerge, and consider it a moderately benign form of black magic. That’s why The Knitting Answer Book has been such a find. It covers, clearly and concisely, all the basics of the craft. The illustrations leave little room for confusion and the text is light yet substantive.

For example: I needed to figure out which cast-on to use and…OK, let’s start at the absolute beginning. I needed to figure out what ‘CO 64, join in rnd’ might refer to. I looked it up, nodded sagely, picked up the needles and yarn, looked at them, set them down, picked up the book again and looked up “Casting On”. I then read the section, nodded sagely, set it down, picked up the needles and yarn, looked at them, set them down, picked up the book again and looked up “best cast-on for socks”. Read, nodded sagely, picked up needles/yarn, wrapped yarn around left hand, wiggled stick with right, paused regularly to count, cursed periodically, eventually reached 64, realized that while I had a nice long-tail cast-on (looked it up again to verify, nodded sagely), it did not appear to be “in rnd”. Looked up “rnd”, then “round”, then “casting-on in the round”, then “joining cast-ons”, read all of the above, nodded sagely, set down book, fetched aspirin to soothe soreness in neck from excessive nodding, picked up sticks and string, and joined the ends of my long-tail cast-on into a circle. Looked up “celebrating victory”, found no suggestions, decided my confidence level was high enough at this point to improvise, took two shots of Jack Daniels, grilled steak over coal, ate said steak, sat down again, picked up needles and string, realized I had several hundred rows to go just for the first sock, along with such mysterious procedures as “instep gussets”, “heel flaps” and “toe decreases”. Counted toes, realized I didn’t have enough to handle all the decreases that the pattern called for and looked up “using black magic to conserve body parts”. After a long session of reading, I pretty much determined that knitting is straightforward if you follow directions, don’t worry about Satanic influences too much, and don’t consume Jack Daniels early in the process. I also learned that there are two camps of knitters, English and Continental, whose relationship is roughly reminiscent of the East Coast and West Coast rap clans. Bought gun, renamed self “M-Dub” for increased street cred, and eventually knit two rather nice wool socks. Word.

Answers were available to the most basic and, eventually, more advanced questions I came up with. They were well-indexed, laid out in a sensible manner, and made sense even to a beer-guzzling, fumble-fingered lunkhead like me. When I ran into problems (read: badly screwed up and didn’t notice at the time), the book helped me solve them. When I didn’t have the right tools, it helped me improvise. It was a life-saver and is, in large part, responsible for the successful completion of my project. I strongly recommend it for starting and intermediate knitters, as well as advanced ones who like a little reassurance. Portable, inexpensive and oh-so-comprehensive, this book is a winner.

Coming up:
-Just Kick It by Mark St. Amant
-Dies The Fire by S.M. Stirling
-The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading The Knitting Answer Book Margaret Radcliffe Witting Knitting 4-ply Katie

The God Delusion

The God Delusion
By: Richard Dawkins
Publisher: Houghton Mifflin (2006)
ISBN: 0618680004 (hardcover)

I find it somewhat apt that my first review after a long and not entirely voluntary hiatus is one of the most divisive works of the last several years. I’m jumping back into the water (thanks to a gentle prod from my new favorite reader), but seem to have chosen the shark tank to re-acclimatize in. I would request that you read on, even if you are predisposed to deep-six this book at first sight. Regardless of your beliefs, the arguments in the book are worth reading, pondering, and systematically accepting or refuting as you are able. Beliefs are strengthened and tempered through discussion and debate, not by avoiding alternatives due to strength of conviction or unwillingness to be disturbed. My bottom line, here offered up front, is that this book is well worth buying and reading for anyone, anywhere, any time. ‘Nuf said.

Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, was already well-known for his writings on evolution, secularism and humanism, particularly The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins states that The God Delusion is an attempt to move beyond simply making the case for evolution, for science, for reason into the realm of proselytizing for atheism. Make no mistake: this book is written for the purpose of converting the reader. It is also written, I suspect, in such a way as to provoke strong reactions, generate controversy, and attract media attention and visibility as a result. These characteristics are by no means faults, in my mind, and do lend a certain ‘readability’ to what would likely be a dry, pedantic tome if written by anyone other than Dawkins. I do not intend to address the validity of Dawkins’ beliefs and arguments as a whole, though I will comment when I see interesting or problematic points. Suffice it to say that I favor a rational, scientific approach to all questions and believe that Western societies have long prevented such a public discussion on issues pertaining to God and His/Her/Its existence. That said, on to the book!

You will not be bored reading this book, I can offer a 100% guarantee on that. You may spend much of your time in the throes of righteous indignation, in self-congratulatory back-patting, in increasingly deep thought, or even in confusion, but you will not be bored.

Dawkins begins with a powerful first chapter. He clearly distinguishes between theists (those who believe in a supernatural power that takes a hand in human affairs), deists (those who believe in a supernatural power unconcerned with human affairs), pantheists (those who use “God” as a synonym for the laws of Nature or the Universe), and atheists (those who do not believe in God). Dawkins shows a great deal of respect for the latter two categories, and dedicates most of this book to refuting the first two. In what is one of the fundamental memes of this book, he quotes Albert Einstein as saying: “I am a deeply religious nonbeliever…I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. That is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.” Regarding the deists and theists, Dawkins again reveals his intent and quotes H.L. Mencken: “We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.” Religious belief does not mean theism. Religious views deserve no more and no less respect than views on any other subject.

Dawkins says that he “shall not go out of [his] way to offend” which could be a true statement if one does not regard condescension and ‘rationaler’-than-thou speeches as being offensive. This attitude is what turns me off the most about the book. Dawkins is a brilliant man with very strong convictions, buttressed almost flawlessly with scientific, philosophical, statistical and logical proofs, and he is not reticent to point this out (over and over again). Even those who agree with him in part or in whole must get tired of the constant “I’m smarter than you” attitude found within the pages. The fact that Dawkins is brilliant and does tend to present flawless arguments only mitigates my irritation at being talked down to. After a few chapters, though, I guess I got used to it and even began laughing at it as I was never tempted to set the book down.

The remainder of the book is laid out in a logical and straightforward manner. Dawkins lays out the “God Hypothesis” throughout history and in its many variations. He examines the arguments that support the “God Hypothesis” throughout history and the various disciplines. He then proceeds to refute those arguments in a chapter charmingly titled “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God” (and before you accuse him of prevarication for the “Almost”, he justifies that choice of words both in context of his arguments and of logic). Having basically covered the argument/counter-argument portion of the book, Dawkins takes a fascinating look at the basis of religion and morality, psychologically, spiritually, and as a function of environment and evolution. This section is very impressive in my mind, presenting a consolidated series of arguments I was unfamiliar with and weaving them into the whole subject of the book. This is the end of the arguments about the logical underpinnings of God and deism/theism.

With Chapter 7, Dawkins really strays from the “shall not strive to offend” statement above. In provocative, strident language he delves into the perceived hypocrisy over most mainstream religion, particularly the notions of God changing with the times and church determination of which parts of the Bible are fact or fiction, parable or law, outmoded or still applicable. Chapter 8 is his answer to the questions “What’s Wrong With Religion? Why Be So Hostile?” and you’d better believe that he justifies his hostility as thoroughly as he justifies any of his other arguments. Chapter 9 delves into the links, real and perceived, between religion (including both cults and mainstream branches) and the psychological/physical/emotional/intellectual abuse of children. None of these three chapters are likely to please even the casual-churchgoer, so if you don’t feel like facing a wave of hostility, then feel free to skip from the end of Chapter 6 to the last chapter.

Chapter 10 offers a provocative look at what roles religion fills in human society, and whether it is valuable for that purpose regardless of the rationality of religious belief. In his words, Dawkins tries to figure out if religion “fills a much needed gap” in the world. His thoughts are not quite what one would expect and are worth reading.

In the end The God Delusion is a highly provocative and confrontational piece of work. It contains excellent arguments and is the most thought-provoking piece of non-fiction I’ve read in quite some time. It should end up on the must-read lists for anyone even vaguely interested in philosophy, theology, sociology, anthropology, or the current socio-political landscapes of the world.


Coming up:
-Just Kick It by Mark St. Amant
-Dies The Fire by S.M. Stirling
-The Knitting Answer Book by Margaret Radcliffe
-The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin Friedman

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading The God Delusion Richard Dawkins Witting Atheism Theology

(the general and) THE JAGUAR

The General and The Jaguar
By: Eileen Welsome
Publisher: Little, Brown (2 June 2006)
ISBN: 0316715999


I finished this one up over the weekend, in much less time than I thought it would take. This entertaining history is quite a fast read, which can be good and/or bad. My straight up recommendation is to give this book a shot if you spot it at the store: if you’re a reader you can power through it on a trans-Atlantic flight or a weekend on the beach. Even if you don’t have much time, it’ll only take a week or so to digest if you can find an hour a day for it. Either way you’ll have fun and learn about a little known slice of American history, one that contains some intriguing parallels to what’s happening today in the world.

Eileen Welsome has the knack for turning history into a story, which is a good thing. She does this by introducing you to the figures involved, major and minor, through their own words from letters, diaries, interviews, books and such, which is a good thing. She avoids speculating about motives for the most part, and doesn’t give in to the urge to put thoughts in their heads or words in their mouths, which is a good thing. She goes into details of key events, never neglecting to include temporal and event context, which is good. She gives the story a broader context to play in as well, occasionally discussing the build up to the First War To End All Wars in Europe, which is both useful and good. In the end, Ms. Welsome has published a history both cogent and timely (I love that phrase), both educational and rather entertaining, which is obviously all to the good.

On the other hand…

Ms. Welsome devotes so much effort to introducing all the various personalities present in Columbus, NM before and during Pancho Villa’s inflammatory raid that a reader will rapidly be piled under the names of hotel guests, farmers, store owners, and cavalry officers, which is not a good thing. She gives us just enough backstory and follow-up on each of the personalities that I, for one, started to get interested in a number of them, but few receive the in-depth coverage I hoped to see given their introductions, which was not so good. She goes into great detail about environmental/social/political situations in camps, in town, in Mexico, for the Army, for Villa, but only once in a while, giving shapshots and not an evolving picture, which is not good. Overall she is prone to giving great detail about people, places, events, and environments at random times, then returning to her surface level story-telling for stretches, making for a very uneven understanding on the part of the reader, which is far from satisfying.

I would have liked to see less personal detail in some places, particularly with regards to victims of the raid and other bit players, in favor of more attention to the primary figures. Woodrow Wilson is a distant figure, but one who plays heavily in what happens. General Pershing doesn’t even appear until halfway through the book, despite his titular credit and photo on the dust jacket. Pancho Villa receives a romantic treatment in many ways (though Ms. Welsome does not shy away from reporting his dark side honestly and objectively) and is quite obviously the focus of the book. Her coverage of him, his actions and his impact on Mexico is comprhensive and should be duplicated for Pershing, at the very least.

The biggest gap, in my mind, is the post-Villa wrap-up. I didn’t get a feel for how this episode impacted the US or Mexico in the longer run (if it did). Ms. Welsome includes a “What Happened To Them?” section about many of the characters and the town of Columbus, a nice touch, but it is a very limited picture indeed.

In the end, this book suffers from a lack of depth but, to be honest, that lack is far from fatal. The book is eminently readable, objective, and focused. Would I like more from it? Sure. Am I fair in that request? Not entirely. Would I recommend it despite my personal irritation? Absolutely.

Technorati Tags: Book reviews Sparky reading The General and the Jaguar Eileen Welsome Bill and Olga Witting Pancho Villa

Dying to Understand

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
Robert A. Pape
Published by Random House, 2005
ISBN 1400063175 Hardcover
ISBN 0812973380 Paperback


This is another book that’s only been out a year or so, though the author did publish a monologue on the subject in 2003 in the American Political Science Review. Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago (Go Maroons!), has put together one of the most comprehensive studies of the causes of suicide terrorism. If you’ve ever uttered the phrase "They hate us for our freedoms!", "Islamofascists!" or anything along the lines of "They blow themselves up because they have nothing to live for!" then this book might do your slogan-embracing little mind some good. Here are a few of the teasers from the dust jacket, just to get you warmed up:

"FACT: Suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism.
FACT: The world’s leading practitioners of suicide terrorism as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka – a secular, Marxist-Leninist group drawn from Hindu families.
FACT: Every suicide terrorist campaign has had a clear goal that is secular and political: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.
FACT: Al-Qaeda fits the above pattern.
FACT: Despite their rhetoric, democracies – including the United States – have routinely made concessions to suicide terrorists. Suicide terrorism is on the rise because terrorists have learned that it’s effective."

I was skeptical going in, but Prof. Pape makes a convincing case. He has had Chicago grad students combing reports the world over and compiling as much information about each and every suicide terrorist as is possible. Nowhere else have I seen a discussion of this topic backed by such comprehensive data. Even the respected experts on today’s terrorists such as Steve Sloan, Bruce Hoffman and Rohan Gunaratna, have not tackled the question of why suicide terrorism persists with such vigor and such resources. Prof. Sloan has spoken at length over the years about his desire for a comprehensive database of terrorism, and uses the question of how to design one as a standard puzzle for his classes. A terrorism database is far larger than a suicide terrorism database, but Prof. Pape and the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism have achieved at least a small part of Prof. Sloan's dream.

The book is broken down into three major parts. The first discusses the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Here, Prof. Pape discusses the widely accepted premise that terrorism in general, and suicide terrorism specifically, are weapons used by the weak against the strong. He points out that suicide terrorism occurs in campaigns, not isolated incidents, and so the threat of continued suicide attacks is as effective a weapon as the attacks themselves. His second major point in this section, and the most relevant, is that suicide terrorism campaigns occur only against democracies, or reasonable facsimiles thereof. India, the US, Israel, modern Russia, France, terrorists have realized that autocratic states are not susceptible to the kinds of fears and pressures that democracies feel, and thus choose other methods to attack them (see the USSR in Afghanistan compared with the US/NATO in Afghanistan and democratic Russia in Chechnya). Finally, Prof. Pape offers proof that suicide terrorism pays. Those who use it tend to get what they want and, if they do not, they tend to abandon the tactic. [As a topical aside, I’m applying his thoughts to the current situation in Lebanon. Hezbollah was a regular user of suicide terrorists in the past, but have not chosen to go down that road (yet) in the current round of hostilities. Why? My take is that they are capable of damaging Israel using more conventional rockets and guerilla warfare; they feel that Israel is being led by emotion and the military, not democratic principles in this case, and they feel that Israel’s invasion of Southern Lebanon will result in Israel being perceived as the bad guy. Why spoil that through suicide terrorism?]

Moving on, Prof. Pape looks at the social logic of suicide terrorism. This section features in depth examinations of groups such as the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), the Tamil Tigers, Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. Each study is meticulously researched and emphasizes not just the group dynamics, but the operational context of each group. The most important part of Section II, though, is the thorough categorization and analysis of the common and dissimilar factors surrounding each suicide terrorist campaign. Prof. Pape determines that nationalism and "national liberation" from occupation perceived or real, are the wellsprings of suicide terrorism, rather than religion. Religion plays a role, but it is secondary to the nationalist side. He also shows that up until now, terrorist campaigns are not a "spiral" of death, as commonly portrayed by frustrated foreign ministers and media experts, but logical and linear military campaigns with specific motivations and goals. A corollary argument, again well documented, is that these groups (of all creeds) do not seek world domination, no matter what the PR says: they have mostly local goals.

Finally, Prof. Pape presents his data on the individual logic of suicide terrorism. He discusses suicide as a societal phenomenon, drawing heavily on Émile Durkheim’s seminal theories on the topic. He combines the accepted theories on individual logic for suicide with the data available on who suicide terrorists were and what motivated them to choose that course of action. The results are somewhat surprising: the majority of suicide terrorists were not maladjusted, depressed, fanatical teenaged loners, but rather people with a strong connection to their society, with secular and political motivations that fall firmly in the "altruistic" category of suicides. They tend to be from the middle class, in their 20s, and well educated. Hezbollah suicide bombers during the 1982-86 campaign, for example, were Christians or Communists/Socialists (and thus prone to atheism) 92% of the time, and only 8% Islamist. He shows his demographic data, broken out admirably by group, conflict and opponent, and finishes with a detailed look at three specific cases: Mohammed Atta from the Al-Qaeda attacks on 11 September 2001, a young woman named Dhanu of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, and Saeed Hotari who blew up a Tel Aviv disco in June of 2001 at the behest of Hamas.

Professor Pape, in his recommendations, accepts that the United States is involved in the Middle East and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. He advocates combating suicide terrorism in two ways. The first is military and diplomatic action against existing terrorist groups, eliminating or marginalizing as many of their members as possible. The second recommendation is to prevent a new generation of terrorists from appearing by slowly reducing our contributions to the conditions that spawn them. This means withdrawing our military from the region as much as possible, particularly the very visible elements of the armed forces. We must encourage and support local solutions to the problems and work through alliances and proxies rather than directly. The question of Israel is one for which he has no concrete solution, though US support for Israel (our proxy occupation of Jerusalem) is a prime cause for terrorism in the Eastern Mediterranean.

In the end, this book seems to prove that terrorists, specifically suicide terrorists, are both more complex and more easily understood than most people like to believe. Politicians, the media, academics and the military take comfort in describing terrorists as being completely foreign, people we don’t understand and could never understand. As in all wars, we try to de-humanize our opponents. In reality, though, the groups studied are working for goals we can all associate with: freedom from oppression, freedom from foreign rule, and national identity. It is not particularly pleasant to realize that suicide bombers are not that different from any of us, but it is a realization that we must all come to if we are to have a hope of slipping out of the crosshairs of these groups. Criminals and murderers they may be, but while we can and must condemn their means, we must also accept that we can understand their goals, and perhaps even sympathize with their plight to a certain extent.

Puck Math

The Physics of Hockey
Alain Haché
Published by The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002
ISBN 0801870712


I’ll admit it, I’m a bit of a math geek. I’ll also admit that I’m a bit of a sports geek. One look at the URL you’re at now should confirm that. One brief visit to the parent site of this blog, WashingtonHockey, will confirm that I don’t have the slightest shame about combining the two interests either. If I spot a chance to include a bit of regression analysis, or some economic theory to a hockey story, well, my day is made. Imagine my excitement, then, when my lovely girlfriend’s father sends me a book as a gift. Getting any book is a treat, but when it’s got the words "Physics" and "Hockey" both in the title, well, I almost made an honest woman out of her just to show him my appreciation!

Since I’m being honest here, I’ll flat out say that if you don’t like either physics or hockey you’ll hate the book. If you like hockey but can’t tell sin θ from Sins of the Father, you’ll struggle (unless you’re a young, hockey playing Canadian male in which case you’ll be glad to know that your chance of making it to the NHL is about 1 in 6,000). If you like physics but can’t tell a check from a Slovak, it’ll be interesting but nothing spectacular (unless you’re a young, non-hockey playing Canadian male in which case you need to consider the odds of making an NHL-equivalent salary if you stick with physics as a career). If you like both, though, this is a treat, and this review is for you.

You know physics, and you know hockey, so you’ve got a good understanding of the shooting motion. The wind-up, the swing, the release, the curvature of the stick, that’s all familiar. This book, however, explains all the motions and interactions involved in the process and there’s more than you might think. The same goes for goalie positioning, skating, accuracy, checking, and player quality. You can see how the author determines that Ray Bourque’s window of opportunity for a goal on a slapper from just inside the blue line, through traffic, with a screened goalie in a partial butterfly was 0.3° (aperture from 70 feet using Δθx = 2arctan (Δx/2d) as the determining formula for horizontal margin of error). Speaking of the butterfly, Haché uses Felix Potvin and Patrick Roy to demonstrate why that particular stance is so popular, while choosing Marty Brodeur for reaction times. He explains salaries as a function of probability, not relative or absolute quality (though I’d like to see him address that now that we’ve got a cap). Bobby Hull is the model in the discussion of shot selection in the crease. Jaromir Jagr shows off his skating power. The list goes on and on and on.

This book lives on my bedside table, with occasional forays to the bathroom bookshelf. I don’t pick it up every day, or even every week, but I never go very long without re-reading a chapter. I don’t play hockey, but I love to apply this kind of knowledge of physics to day to day activities, be it carrying things or playing golf. If you’ve got a puck-crazy friend who did pretty well in high school physics, get ‘em this book, they really don’t need yet another collection of crazy quotes from the penalty box.

Note: I am disappointed that, with all the academic vigor and attention to mathematical accuracy the author devotes, he described Mark Recchi giving "110% at every shift." That’s blatantly impossible. Dale Hunter, sure, but Recchi never gave more than 102% when I’ve seen him…

My Battle Of Algiers is just that

My Battle Of Algiers: A Memoir
Ted Morgan
Published by Collins, 31 January 2006
ISBN 0060852240


I received a dated pre-release copy of Ted Morgan’s My Battle Of Algiers as a free bonus when I recently dropped $20.00 at the local used book store. Intrigued and delighted by a Free Bonus Book I picked it up and raced through it before even touching the other four in the bag; Mr. McMurtry’s westerns and Mr. Kierkegaard’s laboured prose could wait a few more days. I finished the 270-page work in little more than an afternoon on the beach; despite the serious subject matter and attention to detail the book never drags and never bogs down.

Mr. Morgan’s memoir starts with his reasons for publication (more on that preface later), followed by what I consider to be the most important part of the book from an American perspective: the Introduction. Titled “A Child’s History of Algeria”, it is actually a 25 page, concise, incisive, comprehensive introduction to colonial Algeria from a sometimes-French, sometimes-Algerian, sometimes-objective mix of perspectives that somehow never gets confusing. Skimming briefly through the centuries in a page or two, Mr. Morgan seems eager to run through the history, damn the context style, until 29 April, 1827 when the slap of a fly whisk against the cheek of French consul Pierre Duval brings him to a sudden halt. From this point on, Mr. Morgan dances through the following 130 years, briefly pulling key events, people and ideas out of the crowd of history for us to see, then turning to the next with hardly a pause, keeping the swirl of events intact without ever losing the beat. His pace slows as the situation grows ever more complex after the Second World War, eventually coming to a deliberate halt in October of 1956 when France hijacked a plane carrying four leaders of the rebellious Front de Libération Nationale (FLN – National Liberation Front of Algeria, the main rebel group in Algeria). Wistfully and with the air of fatalism pervading the memoir, Mr. Morgan sets aside his historian’s pen and turns to his own story. In his words, “It was at this point, in the fall of 1956, that Algeria entered my life.”

With the body of the memoir we see Mr. Morgan’s intentions in writing and publishing. He made it clear in the preface, but I’d forgotten those three pages halfway through the marvelous introduction. Mr. Morgan plainly sees parallels between the French colonial history in Algeria and the U.S. occupation of Iraq, between the FLN and the Iraqi resistence groups, between the brutal behavior of the French paras and Légion Étrangère, and the behavior of American and British Soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo. Make no mistake, this book is intended as a glimpse into the pit and seems to serve as a sort of confessional for the author (he beat a captive to death early in his tour while trying to get information). It is a protest and a warning, one man’s wake-up call to the reader. It was, unfortunately, not particularly successful in my case.

Mr. Morgan tells much of the story as a first-person account of life as a young French officer in the bleds of Algeria and the teeming streets of Algiers and the country collapses into chaos. He intersperses the narrative with occasional anecdotes, additional context, or brief paragraphs describing the greater impact of events. In this way he confines himself to an intensely personal account, and not one I find particularly convincing as a political lesson. He offers example after example of the brutality of the French troops, colons, and government while treating the FLN with kid gloves. I do not question the justice of the Algerian rebels, but jus ad bellum does not give either side a pass on jus in bello, nor does the lack of one justify the lack of the other. What struck me most vividly from his account is the casual brutality on both sides, the glimpses behind the scenes at some of the demonized and iconized figures of the conflict, and the view of Algiers as a city trying to carry on business as usual while engulfed in bitter, bloody strife. His personal experiences do not lend themselves to making wide-reaching geo-political judgements, but they do offer a rarely seen glimpse of the details, the day-to-day insanity of a city engulfed by guerilla warfare against a foreign occupier.

I recommend this book rather strongly, particularly for those who are sick and tired of big-picture coverage of Iraq and broad histories of prior wars. You will learn something, and you will enjoy doing so.

Mr. Morgan, né Sanche de Gramont, is a noted biographer and the only French citizen to win a Pulitzer (he took the name "Ted Morgan" later when he received his American citizenship). When drafted he returned to France from Worcester, MA where he worked as a fledgling journalist for the Worcester Telegram. Mr. Morgan went through the hierarchy of French military schooling, eventually receiving his 2nd Lieuenant’s bars and a billet in Algeria upon graduation in the fall of 1956.