Do you know that a mans life upon the earth is warfare? We are at war whether we choose to be at war or not. The Bible says that your life is warfare. You must fight the good fight and win the war. This new book on warfare is a must read for all leaders.

General James Longstreet fought in nearly every campaign of the Civil War, from Manassas (the first battle of Bull Run) to Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chickamauga, Gettysburg, and was present at the surrender at Appomattox. Yet, he was largely held to blame for the Confederacy's defeat at Gettysburg. General James Longstreet sheds new light on the controversial commander and the man Robert E. Lee called “my old war horse.”

In this revelatory, dynamic biography, one of our finest historians, Benson Bobrick, profiles George H. Thomas, arguing that he was the greatest and most successful general of the Civil War. Because Thomas didn't live to write his memoirs, his reputation has been largely shaped by others, most notably Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman, two generals with whom Thomas served and who, Bobrick says, diminished his successes in their favor in their own memoirs. Born in Virginia, Thomas survived Nat Turner's rebellion as a boy, then studied at West Point, where Sherman was a classmate. Thomas distinguished himself in the Mexican War and then returned to West Point as an instructor. When the Civil War broke out, Thomas remained loyal to the Union, unlike fellow Virginia-born officer Robert E. Lee (among others). He compiled an outstanding record as an officer in battles at Mill Springs, Perryville, and Stones River. At the Battle of Chickamauga, Thomas, at the time a corps commander, held the center of the Union line under a ferocious assault, then rallied the troops on Horseshoe Ridge to prevent a Confederate rout of the Union army. His extraordinary performance there earned him the nickname "The Rock of Chickamauga." Promoted to command of the Army of the Cumberland, he led his army in a stunning Union victory at the Battle of Chattanooga. Thomas supported Sherman on his march through Georgia in the spring of 1864, winning an important victory at the Battle of Peachtree Creek. As Sherman continued on his March to the Sea, Thomas returned to Tennessee and in the battle of Nashville destroyed the army of Confederate General John Bell Hood. It was one of the most decisive victories of the war, and Thomas won it even as Grant was on his way to remove Thomas from his command. (When Grant discovered the magnitude of Thomas's victory, he quickly changed his mind.) Thomas died of a stroke in 1870 while still on active duty. In the entire Civil War, he never lost a battle or a movement. Throughout his career, Thomas was methodical and careful, and always prepared. Unlike Grant at Shiloh, he was never surprised by an enemy. Unlike Sherman, he never panicked in battle but always remained calm and focused. He was derided by both men as "Slow Trot Thomas," but as Bobrick shows in this brilliant biography, he was quick to analyze every situation and always knew what to do and when to do it. He was not colorful like Grant and Sherman, but he was widely admired by his peers, and some, such as Grant's favorite cavalry commander, General James H. Wilson, thought Thomas the peer of any general in either army. He was the only Union commander to destroy two Confederate armies in the field. Although historians of the Civil War have always regarded Thomas highly, he has never captured the public imagination, perhaps because he has lacked an outstanding biographer -- until now. This informed, judicious, and lucid biography at last gives Thomas his due.

The hero of the War of 1812, the conqueror of Mexico City in the Mexican-American War, and Abraham Lincoln’s top soldier during the first six months of the Civil War, General Winfield Scott was a seminal force in the early expansion and consolidation of the American republic. John S. D. Eisenhower explores how Scott, who served under fourteen presidents, played a leading role in the development of the United States Army from a tiny, loosely organized, politics-dominated establishment to a disciplined professional force capable of effective and sustained campaigning.

This book tells the story of Subotai the Valiant, a warrior for Genghis Khan and one of the greatest generals in military history. Subotai commanded armies whose size, scale, and scope of operations surpassed those led by any other commander in the ancient world.

In this autobiography, Omar N. Bradley (1893-1981) recounts his youth in Missouri, his years at the US Military Academy at West Point (he graduated in 1915 alongside Dwight D. Eisenhower), his assignments on the US-Mexico border and in Montana guarding copper mines during World War I, his tours teaching mathematics at West Point and in 1941, commanding of the US Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, his active duty during World War II in North Africa, Sicily, Normandy and eventually commanding 43 divisions and 1.3 million Americans in Europe, linking up with Soviet forces on the Elbe in April 1945, sealing the defeat of Nazi forces. Bradley provides vivid descriptions of key figures in the liberation of Europe, including Marshall, Eisenhower, Patton, Churchill and Montgomery. Back in Washington, Bradley describes his years heading the Veterans Administration, his tenure as Army Chief of Staff and as first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff starting in 1949. After being promoted to the rank of General of the Army (five stars) in 1950, Bradley was the senior military commander when the Korean War started; he supported President Truman’s wartime policy of containment and was instrumental in persuading Truman to dismiss General MacArthur in 1951 after MacArthur resisted administration attempts to scale back the war’s strategic objectives. “The narrative deals skillfully with the planning and execution of campaigns that changed history... an unmatched panorama of 40 years of American military history... A great many writers have taken a crack at describing the 1944 Allied landings in Normandy [but] no overall description of that long, bitter battle on the American beaches, Utah and Omaha, is better than the one in this book.” — Drew Middleton,The New York Times “The most unassuming of the WW II military chiefs has (in recompense?) the last, stinging word... a vigorous, accomplished, exceptionally unconstrained narrative... Explosive yet likable.” — Kirkus Reviews “[A] surprisingly candid account from a man long reputed to be mild-mannered, discreet, and uncritical of the figures of his time... General Bradley has given us a very informative autobiography. Especially interesting are the sections on American military participation in the North African and Sicilian campaigns, and Eisenhower’s role there; the Normandy landings and subsequent breakout; the Battle of the Bulge; and President Truman’s removal of General MacArthur from command in Korea... He is very frank in his comments on Eisenhower’s weaknesses as Allied commander in North Africa and Sicily, and of Patton’s ill-advised behavior and remarks during that period and later. He is also harshly critical of Montgomery’s “prima donna”-like behavior and his continual efforts to push Eisenhower into giving him the supreme command of all Allied ground troops... With the loss of General Bradley, there are unlikely to be any more top-rank firsthand accounts of this period in US military history. Bradley’s book, therefore, may have the last word, but he hasn’t abused that privilege. He was too fair a man for that.” — Howard C. Thomas, The Christian Science Monitor “[A] superb book... a remarkably smooth-flowing account of the life of one of this country’s most distinguished military leaders... Bradley’s candid appraisals of his superiors, subordinates and peers, notably Patton, Montgomery, Eisenhower, Simpson and Hodges, make fascinating reading... this is a first-rate addition to the growing number of biographies of prominent World War II military personalities. Besides being eminently enjoyable reading for casual consumption, it is of significant value to the student of military history.” — Lieutenant Colonel William A. de Palo, Jr., Infantry Magazine

Satire of career of British professional soldier from Boer War.

This book records my efforts over the past four years to capture in words a description of the form and function of Mathematics, as a background for the Philosophy of Mathematics. My efforts have been encouraged by lec tures that I have given at Heidelberg under the auspices of the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung, at the University of Chicago, and at the University of Minnesota, the latter under the auspices of the Institute for Mathematics and Its Applications. Jean Benabou has carefully read the entire manuscript and has offered incisive comments. George Glauberman, Car los Kenig, Christopher Mulvey, R. Narasimhan, and Dieter Puppe have provided similar comments on chosen chapters. Fred Linton has pointed out places requiring a more exact choice of wording. Many conversations with George Mackey have given me important insights on the nature of Mathematics. I have had similar help from Alfred Aeppli, John Gray, Jay Goldman, Peter Johnstone, Bill Lawvere, and Roger Lyndon. Over the years, I have profited from discussions of general issues with my colleagues Felix Browder and Melvin Rothenberg. Ideas from Tammo Tom Dieck, Albrecht Dold, Richard Lashof, and Ib Madsen have assisted in my study of geometry. Jerry Bona and B.L. Foster have helped with my examina tion of mechanics. My observations about logic have been subject to con structive scrutiny by Gert Miiller, Marian Boykan Pour-El, Ted Slaman, R. Voreadou, Volker Weispfennig, and Hugh Woodin.

“A remarkable book, from its title and subtitle to its last words . . . A stirring indictment of American sentimentality about war.” —Robert G. Kaiser, The Washington Post In Looking for the Good War, Elizabeth D. Samet reexamines the literature, art, and culture that emerged after World War II, bringing her expertise as a professor of English at West Point to bear on the complexity of the postwar period in national life. She exposes the confusion about American identity that was expressed during and immediately after the war, and the deep national ambivalence toward war, violence, and veterans—all of which were suppressed in subsequent decades by a dangerously sentimental attitude toward the United States’ “exceptional” history and destiny. Samet finds the war's ambivalent legacy in some of its most heavily mythologized figures: the war correspondent epitomized by Ernie Pyle, the character of the erstwhile G.I. turned either cop or criminal in the pulp fiction and feature films of the late 1940s, the disaffected Civil War veteran who looms so large on the screen in the Cold War Western, and the resurgent military hero of the post-Vietnam period. Taken together, these figures reveal key elements of postwar attitudes toward violence, liberty, and nation—attitudes that have shaped domestic and foreign policy and that respond in various ways to various assumptions about national identity and purpose established or affirmed by World War II. As the United States reassesses its roles in Afghanistan and the Middle East, the time has come to rethink our national mythology: the way that World War II shaped our sense of national destiny, our beliefs about the use of American military force throughout the world, and our inability to accept the realities of the twenty-first century’s decades of devastating conflict.

The Challenge Built to Last, the defining management study of the nineties, showed how great companies triumph over time and how long-term sustained performance can be engineered into the DNA of an enterprise from the verybeginning. But what about the company that is not born with great DNA? How can good companies, mediocre companies, even bad companies achieve enduring greatness? The Study For years, this question preyed on the mind of Jim Collins. Are there companies that defy gravity and convert long-term mediocrity or worse into long-term superiority? And if so, what are the universal distinguishing characteristics that cause a company to go from good to great? The Standards Using tough benchmarks, Collins and his research team identified a set of elite companies that made the leap to great results and sustained those results for at least fifteen years. How great? After the leap, the good-to-great companies generated cumulative stock returns that beat the general stock market by an average of seven times in fifteen years, better than twice the results delivered by a composite index of the world's greatest companies, including Coca-Cola, Intel, General Electric, and Merck. The Comparisons The research team contrasted the good-to-great companies with a carefully selected set of comparison companies that failed to make the leap from good to great. What was different? Why did one set of companies become truly great performers while the other set remained only good? Over five years, the team analyzed the histories of all twenty-eight companies in the study. After sifting through mountains of data and thousands of pages of interviews, Collins and his crew discovered the key determinants of greatness -- why some companies make the leap and others don't. The Findings The findings of the Good to Great study will surprise many readers and shed light on virtually every area of management strategy and practice. The findings include: Level 5 Leaders: The research team was shocked to discover the type of leadership required to achieve greatness. The Hedgehog Concept (Simplicity within the Three Circles): To go from good to great requires transcending the curse of competence. A Culture of Discipline: When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of entrepreneurship, you get the magical alchemy of great results. Technology Accelerators: Good-to-great companies think differently about the role of technology. The Flywheel and the Doom Loop: Those who launch radical change programs and wrenching restructurings will almost certainly fail to make the leap. “Some of the key concepts discerned in the study,” comments Jim Collins, "fly in the face of our modern business culture and will, quite frankly, upset some people.” Perhaps, but who can afford to ignore these findings?