The Price of Victory: A Naval History of Britain: 1815 - 1945

The Price of Victory: A Naval History of Britain: 1815 - 1945 by N. A. M. Rodger

This is a long, well annotated history of British Navy up until World War II. It is best targeted to the military buff. As a casual reader, I was lost with the intricate details.

Some Principles of Maritime Strategy

Some Principles of Maritime Strategy by Julian Corbett

Naval warfare is distinct from land battles. On land, you can aim to take and control certain swaths of land. In the seas, there is little "controlling" open seas. Instead, the goal is to use a navy to defend key areas and support land warfare. Spreading the navy too wide can be a recipe for disaster. Chasing after the enemy may occasionally succeed, but this may be more due to accident. 

Having a greater dependence on maritime trade does not make one more vulnerable to naval attack. By the contrary, that can make an attack on ship as less critical. Offense also poses advantages over defence.

This book was written over 100 years ago. Naval warfare was changing. Wireless contact made attacks by privateers and pirates less beneficial. The use of convoys was also fading. Japan had already introduced itself to the world stage. World War I had yet to start. It was an interesting time shortly before the dawn of the air age. Despite the technological innovations, maritime transport is still important today and there are many 100-year old concepts that still apply.

Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power

Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power by Rachel Madd

The draft and deployment of reserves but a check on the use of military in conflict. That along with the need for congress to declare war, made presidents reluctant to commit troops overseas. However, leave it to politicians to find end runs around it. Vietnam really got things going with a long running "non-war". Other have taken place all over the world. Government contractors have been brought in to do increasingly large amounts of the work. These private contractors have limited accountability, and often ended up costing much more, rather than saving money. 

The book is filled with anecdotes of badness to bolster the case. Were these the rule or the exception? There are also many parts tied together. What is the appropriate use of US power abroad? The desolation and civil war in former Yugoslavia ended up being a long deployment with limited clarity in mission. Should the US be helping out overseas? What countries are the best place to help? The book throws out a lot of stories, but is short on conclusions.

Lieutenant Dangerous: A Vietnam War Memoir

Lieutenant Dangerous is a late cycle Vietnam memoir. Being late to the game gives the author the advantage of greater retrospection from a distance. He begins with some of the absurdities. Some people could get drafter, while others had exemptions. Local draft boards had a huge say, and were biased towards local kids. The government would be provided equipment on "cost plus profit" basis. Troops were trained in the snow for deployment to the rainforest.

He was drafted after he was married. His primary goal was to avoid harm. Having experience with languages, he sought out an intelligence position that would require language training. He found this full of more absurdities. His training in romance languages helped him pass the test (even though Vietnamese was totally different.) The coursework was mostly rote memorization without real focus on understanding. The location ended up being in El Paso instead of Monterrey. 

He sought to further delay deployment by becoming an officer. Alas, he was first told he was too valuable with his language training. He went another route and was accepted - but ended up becoming an ordinance officer instead. Meanwhile, he also went to Columbia University to talk about enrolling there. He showed up at the peak of protests wearing complete military uniform. That did not go over well. While deployed to Vietnam, he wrote his Senator to complain he was not using his language skills. This eventually got him to more intelligence related operations.

The overall feeling and experience in Vietnam was similar to what we have heard elsewhere. The objective and actions were not clear. The military did not know how to fight in the jungle. He had speciaal criticism for the Air Force. Bombing didn't help the cause. It just made people mad at America. Communism ended up being defeated by communism, not by war.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces

Municipal Police are a relative modern innovation. While police did exist in ancient Rome, they fell out of favor in much of the world. They were not really established until decades after the founding of the United States. Prior to that, communities were mostly homogeneous and would carry out their own discipline. Police were needed only after the rise of larger, less homogeneous cities. Different approaches were used for police initially. Some cities made them very local patronage jobs. This had advantages in that they knew the community. However, it also was rife with corruption and discriminated against non-community members. The opposite extreme was a distant non-resident professionalized force. This eliminated the corruption and seemed to provide equal service. However, the police had little "skin in the game" and did not necessarily align with community needs.
An important point of police process is the "castle doctrine". A person's home is a castle and cannot be broached except under extreme circumstances. The third amendment to the constitution alludes to this. This concept was gradually broached as police powers expanded.
Slavery and reconstruction were both used to expand police powers. Ironically, laws used to capture fugitive slaves were later used to enforce rights of freed blacks in reconstruction. The rule of unintended consequences does seem to regularly play a roll in law enforcement.
The 1960s and the war on drugs saw a huge increase in police militarization. SWAT teams were created to help respond to extreme situations. On large police forces, there was often some justification for these teams to respond to some extreme situations. On smaller police forces, these teams were often forced to justify their uses. The police would use the SWAT team in places where it is not needed, simply because they had a team. No-knock search warrants also became favored by SWAT teams in drug raids. Even the "knock" warrant usually was followed quickly by break in, with the fear that drug evidence may be flushed down the toilet. SWAT team members often loved the thrill of the break in. Civil forfeiture laws further encouraged police to go after drugs in order to make money. The police were able to make money and have fun, but did little to help stop the drug trade. There was also collateral damage, with many cases of cops hitting the wrong house or killing innocent people.
The book does a great deal to support many of the "defund the police" arguments. However, there are many complexities that need to be explored. Especially with regards to drug police, there are federal laws that pre-empt some of the state laws. There are some cases where the militarized force is needed. (After all, it was an inability to properly respond to Austin sniper-shootings that helped lead to militarization.) It is a tough challenge.
The book is highly relevant to the current political debate. However, it also identifies some of the political challenges. The "party out of control" often tends to be the one against militarization of police. Thus, democrats seem to be the "saviors" today. However, Biden's name comes up repeatedly in this book as one of the key sponsors of legislation to increase the scope and militarization of police. If he becomes president will it just shift the police to the "left-wing enforces" and leave are country further divided?