Focusing on an age of rapid technological change and increased competition among nations, Imagining Future Wars compares visions of warfare's future as imagined by military professionals and educated civilians.
Antulio J. Echevarria II is Director of Research at the Army War College and the former Director of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute. From 1998 to 2000 he was the speechwriter for the Army Chief of Staff. He is the author of numerous articles in Military History Quarterly, Joint Forces Quarterly, Army History, Parameters, Air & Space Power Journal, Marine Corps Gazette, Naval War College Review, Naval Institute Proceedings, Journal of Strategic Studies, Military Review, and others.
Antulio Echevarria's Imagining Future War offers a rare,
exceptional and penetrating case study in analyzing predictions
about the changing face of conflict. It is a book military
professionals ought to read--a cautionary tale of the pitfalls and
potential of writing, thinking and preparing for the war of the
future….Imagining Future War delves into all of the salient factors
that shaped 19th century imagination, with chapters that describe
in a jargon-free, straight-forward manner the times and dominant
intellectual movements of the age….Even those not steeped in the
history of the period or deeply familiar with military affairs will
profit from reading Imagining Future War.
*ARMY Magazine*
Provides an excellent historial overview of the visions of possible
technological change which challenged both military and educated
civilians to envision the potentials of future war.
*Midwest Book Review*
Examining the writings of professional military thinkers such as
Ivan Bloch together with works by relative military amateurs such
as H.G. Wells, Echevarria compares how pre-World War I thinkers
imagined the future of warfare. After painting portraits of general
speculative thinking at the time and the actual status of warfare
in broad strokes, he compares writings about land, sea, and air
warfare, finding that the amateurs generally were better at
predicting long-term trends in warfare but were not as good as the
professional military thinkers in predicting short-term tactical
developments.
*Reference & Research Book News*
Ask a Question About this Product More... |