1

Josh Landon
Professor William Dick
HIS 132 1W1
Submitted May 3, 2011
Book Review The Iraq War

In March of 2003, a U.S. led coalition invaded the totalitarian nation of Iraq. The
invasion was an enormous victory for the allied coalition, resulting in a quick overthrow of
Saddams regime and the reinstitution of security and stability in the Middle East. Later that
same year, Williamson Murray and Major General Robert H. Scales, Jr. published a book
summarizing the war from the perspective of the United States military. The Iraq War, a
Military History, masterfully explains the war in an engaging and systematic way. In their
attempt to accurately portray the war, with only four months to research and review sources, they
make several over-arching points about the causes, alleged justification, and consequences of the
war.
Both authors are well-trained and experienced historians and have done extensive
research on the First Gulf War. Although they acknowledge that they didnt have time to write
an academic history of the war they used the vast knowledge that they already possessed as a
framework for interpreting the interviews, documentary evidence, and reports of embedded
journalist.
Williamson Murray is a professor of military history and has served in academic
positions for both the U.S. Navy and Army. He received his Ph D. from Yale University in 1975
and has written many books on military history and strategy. Robert H. Scales, Jr. is a retired
U.S. Army major general and led the armys team of Gulf War historians. Chief author of the
armys official post war analysis of the Gulf War, he also served as commandant of the Army
2

War College. These men are considered to be among the most distinguished U.S. military
historians.
After a short prologue that deals with the first Gulf War, the book walks the reader
through the Iraq wars various stages. After it had become clear in January, 2003 that the U.S.
would indeed be invading Iraq, the world was shocked to see Tony Blair not only pledge his
moral support, but actually commit British forces. While dozens of nations contributed in one
way or another to the war, the division-sized deployment of British troops became an integral
part of the war from a strategic perspective. When coalition ground troops entered Iraq, they
came in at three different locations, with the U.S. Army coming in from the west and north, and
the British and U.S. Marines invading from the south. In the end, the British made up almost a
third of the initial ground deployment.
Not only was communication and cooperation between the U.K. and America exemplary,
advances in precision weapons made close air support much more effective than in past conflicts
and demanded unprecedented levels of inter-service and international cooperation. Similarities
in doctrine and military language helped the desperate members of the coalition perform
superbly together on a level rarely witnessed in the western world.
Choosing not to have a prolonged air bombardment that would give Saddam time to
prepare for the ground invasion, the coalition chose to initiate a number of covert special
missions in the days leading up to invasion. When forces drove through the Iraqi borders on
March 20, 2003, it took less than three weeks for the coalition to converge in Bagdad and
officially announce the end of the Baathist regime. The campaign was a huge success, with
minimal casualties and collateral damage. Coalition forces were also able to develop and try
new and more effective strategies, tactics, and instruments. The lightning-fast victory not only
3

liberated the Iraqi people and secured U.S. interests, but sent a clear message to other middle-
eastern dictatorships about American military ability and willingness to deploy in large scale
attacks.
In order to form a clearer image of what happened in 2003, the authors emphasized
several key themes. One such theme is that of U.S. military superiority over not only the
undisciplined armed forces of Iraq, but of most militaries in the world. The authors draw
attention to the overwhelming technological advantages that America holds over other nations.
Besides being on the cutting edge of technological advances, America is in a unique position in
its ability to produce such expensive products in mass.
Another important aspect of the United States military advantage that the authors use to
support their claim is that of doctrine. The book repeatedly praises Americas newfound
doctrinal flexibility. Explaining that the military experienced a sort of reformation in the
eighties, after the disastrous product of Vietnam became intolerable, the book shows that the
rewritten field books provided the western powers with the capability to form ad hock formations
(similar to the ones the Nazis used in WWII) to meet the unique demands of each individual
situation. This, along with the unparalleled training of the troops and the intelligence and drive
of the leaders, prevented the Iraqis from having a chance from the start.
The authors dont give the U.S. military too much credit though. The reader is
impressed, almost right away, with the incompetence and corruption of Saddams regime and the
inability of his military to fight effectively. Attention is drawn to the general unproductively and
inefficiency that results from a bureaucracy and military command chosen purely on the basis of
loyalty to the regime, with little regard for experience, education, or other normal qualification.
Most of Saddams army was poorly equipped and had very little formal training or discipline.
4

Even if the republican guard had been competent, most individual solders lacked the motivation
to lay down their lives for a totalitarian dictator.
Besides the superiority of American armed forces and the inferiority of Saddams
military, the book sends another very clear message. It is obviously the belief of the authors that
Americas actions, on the whole, were completely justifiable considering the information
available to U.S. leaders at the time. Caught smack dab in the middle of the oil trade, there can
be little disagreement that America had interests at stake. To further perk our interest, the
general stability of the region was put slightly off balance by Saddams actions leading up to
2003. If that wasnt enough, there was a genuine belief among many military, intelligence, and
political leaders that Saddam had gained access to weapons of mass destruction and there was
little doubt that such a situation posed a grave threat to U.S. security.
The authors make other points, such as the potential need for the U.S. to stay in Iraq for
several years to provide security and the ways in which the U.S. fought more effectively in 2003
than it had in 1991. It is interesting to consider their claims about keeping an American presence
in Iraq since they were writing before the controversy about a surge developed.
Over all, the book is extremely successful in conveying, not only the basic facts of the
war, but also the underlying cause and effects of the conflict. It is engaging and demands
attention. Acting as a sort of summary, without sacrificing detail and precision, the book is fun
to read and helps put the war in perspective.
Personally, the book helped show me what all the talk has been about. Over the past few
years Ive had seasons of intense interest and seasons that were boring, and reading this book has
helped me to fill in the gaps. I feel that I understand the current situation in Iraq much better
now and I hope to read more books like this one.
5

Source
Murray, W., Scales, R. H. (2003) The Iraq War, A Military History. London, England; Harvard
University Press