This analysis is also ironic, when you consider that it was written by a guy whose profession lies somewhere in the realm of "college professor," "historian," "author" and "syndicated columnist" -- but the phrase "military background" appears nowhere on his resume.
He's just about fully convinced himself that he is Thucydides.
Yet on the issue of war I trust VDH's perspective more than I do that of that great warrior, Wesley Clark.
While a military background is surely useful for a military historian, it is hardly a neccessity.
The prolific and respected John Keegan , for example, has no military service aside from an academic appointment at Sandhurst.
A man who is only a scholar and student of history and warfare can't really understand, on a personal level, what its like to be a soldier in the field. He can try, and he certainly can come closer than the average non-military layman with no perspective of history and war.
But a soldier on the ground who konws only the face of battle can't really understand what a student of warfare and history can know - how warfare is the NORMAL state of human existance, that friendly fire casualties are nothing new and can never be completed eliminated, that no matter how well a campaign is planned, unforseen events can sway the eventual outcome. But then thats not the job of the grunt on the ground. His job is to follow commands and eliminate the enemy and that is a chore large enough for anyone without having to be burdened by analyses of hsitorical events and their relationship to his own situation.
The average American has a pathetic comprehension of what the world of international power really involves. Most of them can't even name the governor of the adjoining state or tell the difference between the Mayflower Compact and the War of the League of Augsburg. They only know they are comfortable, they expect to remain comfortable, and think their vision of the world today is what most people on earth experience.
I think this guy, whoever he is, makes much sense.