Gross Analytics

Professor Michael Gross left a lengthy response at Current Intelligence to my remarks about his characterization of asymmetric war. I’m afraid he seems displeased with me:

Far superior to faint praise, it is still annoying when reviewers pick out controversial arguments but leave the impression that the author did not address them.

Oh dear. It’s true that, in my effort at brevity, I did give short shrift to many of the overarching strengths of the book: its breadth, up-to-date-ness, and unique and timely case studies on non-lethal weapons, assassination, the right to self-defense of national liberation movements and humanitarian intervention among others.

But then again, this wasn’t a book review, just a brief response to a specific set of points Gross makes. My other essay referencing his book responds to a different set of equally specific points, and should also be read as such. Neither is or is intended to define or respond to the entire book, which is a broad overview of dilemmas states face in winning wars against irregulars. (Professor Gross is also apparently writing an equivalent treatise on the moral dilemmas faced by irregulars, which I eagerly anticipate.)

At any rate, Gross goes on to engage the comments I did make at some length, for which I’m grateful. As one good turn deserves another, I have developed a post at Duck of Minerva that discusses some of his remarks and also tries to clarify where I see the differences in our opinions. We’re not so far apart really (we both care about war law and about protecting noncombatants) but we do differ somewhat on analytical, ethical and programmatic grounds. Read it here.