Book Review - The Human Face of War
The Human Face of War
Written by: Jim Storr,
Continuum International Publishing, London, 2009,
ISBN: 9781441187505, 256pp.
Reviewed by: Justin Kelly
Many readers will be aware of Jim Storr through his contributions to various British journals over the last twenty years. A retired Infantry officer, he is a forensic thinker with a strong empiricist bent—one who works from the observed facts towards a theory rather than the other way round. In the latter stages of his military career he was deeply involved in operational analysis, doctrine production and the analysis of lessons. The Human Face of War is his first book and is very reflective of the author’s professional experience.
This is an important book, albeit one with an audience that is probably limited to specialists. It opens with a review of the sources and character of military theory. By investigating the distinctions between arts and sciences it discloses the uncertain foundations on which many of our presuppositions are based and, convincingly, argues that we are whistling in the dark. On the way to this conclusion, in a wonderfully grumpy first chapter, Storr disposes of Fuller’s principles of war, dismisses Boyd’s OODA loop, aims some passing blows at Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, and derides most of the key ideas that have shaped the military debate since the end of the Cold War. For anybody involved in doctrine or concept development this chapter alone is worth the price of the book.
Storr, does not, however, propose a theory himself. This is refreshing in an era in which anybody with a computer seems to deem themselves qualified to have a view on a unified theory of war. Rather, Storr argues that warfare is so chaotic, so fundamentally human, so replete with exceptions, that attempts to encase it in some theoretical framework are bound to fail. So instead of a theory of war, Storr proposes that, as true empiricists, we approach each situation with perfect openness of mind and, by making better decisions faster, win.
To support this line of argument he leads the reader through an examination of a number of ideas that are important to understanding combat: shock, attrition, the structure of tactical organisations, command and the role of leaders. In this, Storr focuses clearly on conventional combat, which is presently unfashionable, but if the reader looks beyond the specific examples to the techniques of analysis being used there is much that can be learnt along the way. This is a good book because it demonstrates the utility of combining experience, either actual or vicarious, with critical thinking to arrive at conclusions that are independent of fashion, and which avoid defaulting to the latest buzzwords. As a book on the methodology of military theorising, at least about combat, it is probably unique.
The Human Face of War is not, however, perfect. Although Storr is clearly erudite he is equally impatient with abstractions and so he tends to be dismissive of things that cant be measured. For example, he discounts Luttwaks propositions about the paradoxical logic of war portraying them as theoretical weaknesses. Yet his central thesis is based on the same precept—that real enemies will constantly avoid your strengths and circumvent your preparations, and that therefore speed and agility are crucial. There is a related reluctance to draw from his stated examples those generalities that are the first step towards the development of coherent theory. To this reviewer, if Storr went up a couple of layers of abstraction he would find that he is strongly Clausewitzian. Instead, by rejecting abstractions, Storr’s empiricist bent leads him to argue that the exceptions invalidate the derivation of rules and, mostly the book discounts rather than proposes solutions other than ‘select and prepare your people well and hope for the best’. The book is also wrongly titled. It is not a book about war, but one about combat, and these two subjects, although closely related, are not the same.
This is a valuable and important book for the specialist reader and one that is chock-full of fascinating insights, examples and analysis. Although, to this reviewer, it occasionally draws premature and incomplete conclusions, these do not overly detract from its very useful methodology and confronting propositions. Storr is a good writer and the voice of the book is strongly reminiscent of the late Richard Simpkin, rich in conviction and, surprisingly given the nature of the subject, compelling. It is recommended for anyone with an interest in the theory of combat.
