Reddit mentions: The best american military history books

I feel pretty good about being an American.

I vote, I rally, and I commit a significant portion of my time away from work helping to campaign for individuals whose campaigns align with my own ideals.

I know that my vote, and only my vote, can influence the outcome of elections. This isn't true in a singular sense, but if only if you are aware of Down's Paradox and actively work against it.

The United States economy is going through a great resurgence and as a direct result I've seen my salary raise by nearly $25k in the past year.

I know that the imprisonment of prisoners of war is happening and I know that it is not necessarily happening legally. I also know that despite how much chagrin we place towards "advanced interrogation techniques" that they do in fact provide some good intelligence. Albeit not all or even a majority of the time, but sometimes they do.

The major thing that we cannot truly calculate is the number of attacks that have been thwarted due to torture, phone tapping, email screening, or otherwise invasive maneuvers into my personal freedom.

I do not agree with the way that these things have come about, but I actively do my part to try and corral them.

I look at how much the US government "spies on its citizens" and then I look across the pond at the UK where there are CCTVs everywhere - the amount of "spying" that is actually occurring against your average every day citizen is not as much as some people would like for us to believe - just as it is definitely more than what some agencies would like for us to believe.

Which portions of the Constitution are you referring to? Please give me a list of specific articles and I will either agree with you wholeheartedly or I will help to explain why the Constitution is not being ignored as much as being spread by the ambiguity of legal definition; a key point considering the fact that the Constitution is a legal document.

The "frequently corrupt" police force that murders innocent people and frequently aren't held accountable is not, and I repeat, is not a staple of the US Government. In fact, each police force is representative of each individual state government and the powers held therein, in accordance with the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. So, by inherently ascribing the "corruption" of the "US" police force, you're creating a false narrative in itself - there is no "US" police force and each individual department is governed by the individual states.

These individual states would probably hold more power and sway if we, the people, did not consistently decide that we wanted the US federal government to have more control and power in our daily lives. Because of our nation's general lack of understanding of the generic makeup of our government and the underlying backbone of federalism within, we tend to make these broad assumptions.

We have the most people incarcerated of any country, sure. We also have a higher population than most of the other countries that we are often ranked against - a hugely determining factor that is so easily swept under the rug whenever any statistic such as this one is brought up. We also have an outdated drug policy that will eventually be overturned and eventually will release the vast majority of these prisoners. The key term there being "eventually" because our government was specifically drawn up to require a good amount of time for major pieces of legislation to be overruled. This helps to fight against vast swings in public opinion and also tends to help combat bouts of demagoguery - another thing that we should probably teach more about in our schools.

I'm not going to comment on "going after journalists and whistle-blowers" because the big bad US government isn't, in fact, singling these people out en masse. That being said, I'm sure that it does happen, and I'm sure that when it does there are indeed some grandiose underpinnings to it. Do I agree with it? No. So what do I do? I do what I can to help place politicians in power who can do something about it.

The US has not invaded or bombed a single country this side of 2000 where the overall achieved effect could be considered "profitable." Look at the deficit that we grew in response to the Iraq/Afghanistan war if you need further clarification.

I'm proud to be an American. I'm proud because I can see people coming from countries of true destitution come here and make something of themselves - maybe not something for them individually, but something that allows their children to have a better lot in life than they did; a most respectful endeavor.

I'm proud to be an American because I was able to study political science and focus on American politics so that I could better understand the machinations of our government and rise above the general populace and the notions of fear-mongering that so easily encapture us (something you are engaging in now, believe it or not).

I suggest that you embark on a well encouraged journey to help better your own understanding of the Constitution, the powers held within, and the intent of those who wrote it.

A good and short starting point is Philip Hamburger's paper (PDF warning) The Constitution's Accommodation of Social Change

Moreover, a large amount of the issues that you address are issues of comparison between legal thought and the ever-changing opinion of morality. I suggest you read Richard Posner's work (PDF warning) The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory

Lastly, to truly help increase knowledge of our international relations and the policies within, I suggest reading three books for three different reasons:

1. John Stuart Mill - On Liberty - This book lays a good foundation for the questions you raise concerning the rights of citizens in relation to the government.
   
   
2. Debra Liang-Fenton - Implementing US Human Rights Policy - This book helps to tackle the problem that you discuss concerning "profitable" bombings/invasions. It will most likely align very well with your underlying interests.
   
   
3. Continuing on the path of international relations, I suggest you pick up David Halberstam's War in a Time of Peace to help better understand some of the underlying machinations of our foreign policy fumbles.
   
   
   
   Often, I think that people find themselves ashamed of our country and our government due to their lack of knowledge of the underlying struggles that dictate our leaders' decision making, coupled with a lack of understanding of how exactly our leaders come into (and subsequently stay in) power. These issues are not unrelated, but instead part of a larger network of issues that all stem from a basic lack of education in the realm of civics and American government.

For the record, I didn't downvote you - it's perfectly fine not to like a ship. Different strokes, different folks, etc.

From the perspective of somebody who does love Steve/Bucky as a romantic/sexual relationship, though, part of the appeal for me is that stories about close friends who grew up together and are "like brothers" are a dime a dozen, and so are stories about the special bonds between men who serve together in combat, but stories about LGBT friendships and LGBT soldiers are much fewer and further between, so taken in the context of media as a whole, it's a more original angle to make them lovers.

Now that queer history is something that's being openly studied and published, we also know that Steve and Bucky grew up in an absolutely fascinating time period from a queer history perspective. There have been several noteworthy books in recent years about queer NYC in the 1920s-1940s (and Brooklyn specifically was very queer in that period), as well as an excellent one on LGBT soldiers in WW2. For fanfiction writers who thrive on what-ifs, it's hard to resist putting familiar, beloved characters into that context when the opportunity is right there.

Three_Letter_Agency: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

History of Bin Laden/Al Qaeda

• US Security officials rejected key information on bin laden by Sudan (theres a theme here with investigating bin laden before 9/11 isnt there)
  
  
• "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west." - Robin Cook, former UK Foreign Secretary
  
  
• The CIA created and armed the Mujahideen with 7.5 billion in 1979 and the Saudis matched them dollar for dollar
  
  
• Bin Ladens MAK, precursor to Al Qaeda, received funding from the ISI (which received funding from the CIA)
  
  
• Bin Ladens tunnel complex, which he would later use after 9/11, was financed by the CIA
  
  
• "The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist." Their negotiations concluded as such: ""We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, 'Let him.'"- Washington Post 2001
  
  
• Clinton declined to charge bin laden with a crime in 94 even though he had been clearly linked to the WTC bombings.
  
  
• MI6 paid large sums to al qaeda in Libya to assassinate gadhaffi in 96. Gadaffi issued an INTERPOL arrest warrant for bin Laden in 98, US and UK downplayed it, likely because they had recently funded the libya cell. 5 months later, al qaeda bombed US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya
  
  
• Al Qaeda and the US fought on the same side of the war in Kosovo and Bosnia. They recently repeated the process with Libya and Syria
  
  
• According to the official story, bin Laden turned against the US after they occupied military bases in Saudi Arabia. This doesnt make sense, because: Scott Armstrong, at the time the top investigative reporter for the Washington Post, stated that the United States and Saudi Arabia had jointly conspired to covertly build $200 billion worth of military installations between the years 1979 and 1992. Steve Coll, eminent Bin Laden biographer, states that the Binladen group received a multitude of these contracts, with the knowing intent to support to house US military personal during wars that may threaten Saudi territory. This was occuring at the same time that Osama was tight with his family and using Binladen group assets to build bases in Afghanistan. Of course he was aware of the business dealings between the company.
  
  
• Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, on Larry King Live: "In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?"
  
  
• And then there is the fascinating story of Egyptian Ali Muhammed, only tangentially related but thoroughly interesting nonetheless.
  He was a part of the fundamentalist military unit that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. In 1984, he was hired by the CIA, though they claim that their relationship was short-lived. He would soon join the military and become a member of the Green Berets, and serve as a drill sergeant at Fort Bragg while providing clandestine training to jihadists such as Mahmud Abaouhalima, convicted perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
  
  
• He would take a short leave from his military duties and travel to Afghanistan in 1988 to assist the Mujahideen, returning just months later.
  
  
• In the early 1990's he would return to Afghanistan and began training jihadists with the skills he had learned at Fort Bragg. According to former FBI special agent Jack Cloonan, in an interview with PBS, his first training session included Osama bin Laden, as well as Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al Qaeda.
  
  
• Former Directors of Counter-terrorism at the National Security Council have alleged that Muhammed took maps and training materials from Fort Bragg and used them to write the Al Qaeda terrorist training manual.
  
  
• His superior at Fort Bragg, Lt. Col. Robert Anderson, has stated that “I think you or I would have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery, than an Egyptian major in the unit that assassinated Sadat would have getting a visa, getting to California, getting into the Army and getting assigned to a Special Forces unit. That just doesn’t happen.”
  
  
• Elsewhere he stated that "It was unthinkable that an ordinary American GI would go unpunished after fighting in a foreign war," and that he assumed that Muhammed was sponsored by the CIA.

History of Bin Laden/Al Qaeda

• US Security officials rejected key information on bin laden by Sudan (theres a theme here with investigating bin laden before 9/11 isnt there)
  
  
• "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west." - Robin Cook, former UK Foreign Secretary
  
  
• The CIA created and armed the Mujahideen with 7.5 billion in 1979 and the Saudis matched them dollar for dollar
  
  
• Bin Ladens MAK, precursor to Al Qaeda, received funding from the ISI (which received funding from the CIA)
  
  
• Bin Ladens tunnel complex, which he would later use after 9/11, was financed by the CIA
  
  
• "The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist." Their negotiations concluded as such: ""We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, 'Let him.'"- Washington Post 2001
  
  
• Clinton declined to charge bin laden with a crime in 94 even though he had been clearly linked to the WTC bombings.
  
  
• MI6 paid large sums to al qaeda in Libya to assassinate gadhaffi in 96. Gadaffi issued an INTERPOL arrest warrant for bin Laden in 98, US and UK downplayed it, likely because they had recently funded the libya cell. 5 months later, al qaeda bombed US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya
  
  
• Al Qaeda and the US fought on the same side of the war in Kosovo and Bosnia. They recently repeated the process with Libya and Syria
  
  
• According to the official story, bin Laden turned against the US after they occupied military bases in Saudi Arabia. This doesnt make sense, because: Scott Armstrong, at the time the top investigative reporter for the Washington Post, stated that the United States and Saudi Arabia had jointly conspired to covertly build $200 billion worth of military installations between the years 1979 and 1992. Steve Coll, eminent Bin Laden biographer, states that the Binladen group received a multitude of these contracts, with the knowing intent to support to house US military personal during wars that may threaten Saudi territory. This was occuring at the same time that Osama was tight with his family and using Binladen group assets to build bases in Afghanistan. Of course he was aware of the business dealings between the company.
  
  
• Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, on Larry King Live: "In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?"
  
  
• And then there is the fascinating story of Egyptian Ali Muhammed, only tangentially related but thoroughly interesting nonetheless.
  He was a part of the fundamentalist military unit that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. In 1984, he was hired by the CIA, though they claim that their relationship was short-lived. He would soon join the military and become a member of the Green Berets, and serve as a drill sergeant at Fort Bragg while providing clandestine training to jihadists such as Mahmud Abaouhalima, convicted perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
  
  
• He would take a short leave from his military duties and travel to Afghanistan in 1988 to assist the Mujahideen, returning just months later.
  
  
• In the early 1990's he would return to Afghanistan and began training jihadists with the skills he had learned at Fort Bragg. According to former FBI special agent Jack Cloonan, in an interview with PBS, his first training session included Osama bin Laden, as well as Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al Qaeda.
  
  
• Former Directors of Counter-terrorism at the National Security Council have alleged that Muhammed took maps and training materials from Fort Bragg and used them to write the Al Qaeda terrorist training manual.
  
  
• His superior at Fort Bragg, Lt. Col. Robert Anderson, has stated that “I think you or I would have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery, than an Egyptian major in the unit that assassinated Sadat would have getting a visa, getting to California, getting into the Army and getting assigned to a Special Forces unit. That just doesn’t happen.”
  
  
• Elsewhere he stated that "It was unthinkable that an ordinary American GI would go unpunished after fighting in a foreign war," and that he assumed that Muhammed was sponsored by the CIA.

History of Bin Laden/Al Qaeda

• US Security officials rejected key information on bin laden by Sudan (theres a theme here with investigating bin laden before 9/11 isnt there)
  
  
• "Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west." - Robin Cook, former UK Foreign Secretary
  
  
• The CIA created and armed the Mujahideen with 7.5 billion in 1979 and the Saudis matched them dollar for dollar
  
  
• Bin Ladens MAK, precursor to Al Qaeda, received funding from the ISI (which received funding from the CIA)
  
  
• Bin Ladens tunnel complex, which he would later use after 9/11, was financed by the CIA
  
  
• "The Sudanese security services, he said, would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States. But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place him in custody and hand him over, though to whom was ambiguous. In one formulation, Erwa said Sudan would consider any legitimate proffer of criminal charges against the accused terrorist." Their negotiations concluded as such: ""We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US officials!] said, 'Let him.'"- Washington Post 2001
  
  
• Clinton declined to charge bin laden with a crime in 94 even though he had been clearly linked to the WTC bombings.
  
  
• MI6 paid large sums to al qaeda in Libya to assassinate gadhaffi in 96. Gadaffi issued an INTERPOL arrest warrant for bin Laden in 98, US and UK downplayed it, likely because they had recently funded the libya cell. 5 months later, al qaeda bombed US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya
  
  
• Al Qaeda and the US fought on the same side of the war in Kosovo and Bosnia. They recently repeated the process with Libya and Syria
  
  
• According to the official story, bin Laden turned against the US after they occupied military bases in Saudi Arabia. This doesnt make sense, because: Scott Armstrong, at the time the top investigative reporter for the Washington Post, stated that the United States and Saudi Arabia had jointly conspired to covertly build $200 billion worth of military installations between the years 1979 and 1992. Steve Coll, eminent Bin Laden biographer, states that the Binladen group received a multitude of these contracts, with the knowing intent to support to house US military personal during wars that may threaten Saudi territory. This was occuring at the same time that Osama was tight with his family and using Binladen group assets to build bases in Afghanistan. Of course he was aware of the business dealings between the company.
  
  
• Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia, on Larry King Live: "In the mid-'80s, if you remember, we and the United - Saudi Arabia and the United States were supporting the Mujahideen to liberate Afghanistan from the Soviets. He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists, he said the communists. Isn't it ironic?"
  
  
• And then there is the fascinating story of Egyptian Ali Muhammed, only tangentially related but thoroughly interesting nonetheless.
  He was a part of the fundamentalist military unit that assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. In 1984, he was hired by the CIA, though they claim that their relationship was short-lived. He would soon join the military and become a member of the Green Berets, and serve as a drill sergeant at Fort Bragg while providing clandestine training to jihadists such as Mahmud Abaouhalima, convicted perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
  
  
• He would take a short leave from his military duties and travel to Afghanistan in 1988 to assist the Mujahideen, returning just months later.
  
  
• In the early 1990's he would return to Afghanistan and began training jihadists with the skills he had learned at Fort Bragg. According to former FBI special agent Jack Cloonan, in an interview with PBS, his first training session included Osama bin Laden, as well as Ayman al-Zawahiri, the current leader of Al Qaeda.
  
  
• Former Directors of Counter-terrorism at the National Security Council have alleged that Muhammed took maps and training materials from Fort Bragg and used them to write the Al Qaeda terrorist training manual.
  
  
• His superior at Fort Bragg, Lt. Col. Robert Anderson, has stated that “I think you or I would have a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery, than an Egyptian major in the unit that assassinated Sadat would have getting a visa, getting to California, getting into the Army and getting assigned to a Special Forces unit. That just doesn’t happen.”
  
  
• Elsewhere he stated that "It was unthinkable that an ordinary American GI would go unpunished after fighting in a foreign war," and that he assumed that Muhammed was sponsored by the CIA.

Wow thanks, this clears up what I was asking exactly. Also makes me realize why it's such a hard question to answer. I didn't know there was a difference between competition and bid- that really clarifies a lot. Also, so simple about the headline wording. I just have totally been misreading that, thank you.

I bet you've learned this from professional experience in the military, but could you recommend a good book that covers this stuff for a newbie who wants to learn more? From the bottom up- assuming no knowledge (a layperson's book).

From googling and looking on Amazon, I found these three I'm thinking about getting (below). They all have ideological perspectives, but different ones so I thought it would be a good overview without being too skewed. But if I could find one book instead of three that would be better. :)

https://www.amazon.com/Lobbying-Defense-Insiders-Matthew-Kambrod/dp/1591144256/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1525898006&sr=8-12&keywords=military+industry+contracts

https://www.amazon.com/Americas-War-Machine-Interests-Conflicts/dp/1250069777/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525897967&sr=8-1&keywords=military+industrial+complex

https://www.amazon.com/Prophets-War-Lockheed-Military-Industrial-Complex/dp/1568586973/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1525897967&sr=8-3&keywords=military+industrial+complex

>Was that it? That's the way I saw it, but I was in the minority.

Yep, that was the plan for South Vietnam. The eventual end goal of U.S. troops there was to fight off the North Vietnamese invasion/insurgency, and allow the government to build up its military forces and civil society enough to allow South Vietnam to permanently defend itself against North Vietnam's efforts to take over the country. This is what "Peace With Honor" refers to. South Vietnam was basically intended to be a carbon copy of the situation we have with South Korea.

Both Korea and Vietnam had a DMZ and were backed by essentially the same powers. The only difference was South Korea only has oceans on either side of it, whereas South Vietnam had the weak "neutral" nations of Laos and Cambodia next to it. The North Vietnamese had already invaded and stationed multiple divisions worth of troops in "neutral" Cambodia and Laos, using them to conduct cross-border raids deep into South Vietnam well to the rear of the official North-South DMZ. This contrasts with the Korean peninsula, where Kim Il-sung was not likely to be successful in his efforts to station several divisions of troops in the oceans next to South Korea.

The overall national interest in helping South Vietnam was to resist the communization of mainland Southeast Asia, in order to show the Soviet Union that it couldn't bankroll and foment violent communist civil wars around the world willy nilly at low cost, because the U.S. would confront them and impose a high price on Soviet actions.

===

>Thanks for liking my stories. I am in remarkably good health lately, considering. Can't find the cause. The only change seems to be getting those damned stories out of my head. I feel better. Thank you for reading. Couldn't feel this good without you.

You know, you could get them turned into a book. Check out something like Reflections of a Warrior, which is a collection of bar stories from a Green Beret who was in Vietnam. Someone got a ghost writer to interview him and put his stories into words, and format it as a collection of stories. I was under the impression all the proceeds went straight to a SOF charity but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, just something to think about.

Lindsey Cormack did an exhaustive study of which party introduces more legislation for veterans benefits. It showed it was Democrats. It also showed Republicans gave more lip service.

> Providing a compelling look at veterans' policy, this book describes why the Republican party is considered the party for veterans despite the fact that Congressional Democrats are responsible for a greater number of policy initiatives. -Amazon

> Republicans are often viewed as the party of veterans, and this presumption is supported by public opinion and voting data. Yet more often than not, Democrats in Congress are the ones working to enhance veterans benefits. -Stevens Institute of Technology

Here is a list of veterans bills Republicans shot down.

Both sides are not the same. Democrats do more for veterans. Republicans blow air and do less.

To hit a few that haven’t been mentioned:

Colder than Hell is a pretty good autobiography about Korea.

Semper Fi Vietnam gives a pretty good overview of our actions Vietnam. Made me realize how heavy some of the fighting was, and how inaccurate the popular conception of the war was.

No True Glory and The Strongest Tribe are both pretty good accounts of Iraq. The former mostly deals with Fallujah and the latter with the Awakening.

Trust Betrayed: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the Selling Out of America's National Security

> “Former Navy SEAL Scott Taylor brings a critical perspective to the public policy debate. He speaks from the experience that he and his brothers in arms have gained in dangerous corners of the world where only strength and resolve keep the world’s bad actors at bay. And he understands that American power—especially when you consider the alternatives—is good not just for Americans, but for the world. In Trust Betrayed Taylor exposes the Obama administration leaks that have endangered our special forces, and he makes the case for a foreign policy based on U.S. national interests, not grandiose ambitions or wishful thinking. This is an important book.”
—John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations

> “As Barack Obama has moved the US ever farther away from a foreign policy that actually safeguarded US national security, it has become increasingly difficult for patriotic politicians—and ordinary Americans—to see what can and must be done to get us out of this current mess, and restore America’s strength and security before it’s too late. But in Trust Betrayed, former Navy SEAL Scott Taylor analyzes the contemporary situation with the keen eye of a man who has seen the disastrous effects of Obama’s policies up close, and provides a reasonable and realistic path back to national sanity. Not only should all candidates for national office be required to read this book—they should be required to report on it, and explain how they intend to implement its recommendations.”
—Robert Spencer, author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam® (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'political books' but I'm going to assume that you're looking for books that help explain the current political situation and current events. Maybe I'm wrong.

Fiasco and the follow up by Thomas Ricks The Gamble. These are fantastic books that put the Iraq war in perspective.

Looming Tower. A great book about the lead-up to 9/11.

For stuff about torture and Bush's policies therein I'd start with Dark Side but Torture Team is better, just more legalistic and possibly drier.

For understanding the politics right now I think it's really good to know about authoritarianism. It's completely changed how I've viewed politics. This is a new book on the subject that I have on my shelf but haven't gotten around to reading.

If this is the type of stuff you're looking for, I'm happy to provide other recommendations, but I think that's a good place to start.

EDIT: formatting

There is some bad language here, but I want to be faithful to the record. Influencer Vernon Jordan, who often golfed with Bill Clinton was asked by a journalist what they talked about during their eighteen hole time spent together. His response was, “We talk about pussy.” It doesn’t change my opinion of Bill Clinton one bit. Most of what I think about Clinton comes from David Halberstam’s excellent book and it boils down to he was an extremely charismatic and extremely flawed man who cared way too much what people thought of him. He polled everything and was very good at making political calculations. I don’t view him as a great President.

Women should not be in the military.

Read the following books and I think you'd agree:

Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military

Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars

Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster

The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars

Samuel Huntington's The Soldier and the State is one of the preeminent works on civil-military relations. In it, he discusses the ideas of subjective and objective civilian control over of the military.

• Subjective civilian control is maximizing civilian power in relation to the military; when one group of civilians is empowered at the expense of another group of civilians.
  
  
• Objective civilian control is maximizing military professionalism; making the military a tool of the state rather than a mirror of the state; this makes them politically neutral and sterile.
  
  How did the Framers view the question of civilian control of the military? Why does the constitution make civilian control of the military difficult to achieve?
  
  
• The Constitution does not permit the objective civilian control compatible with a high level of military professionalism
  
  
• The Framers wrote a subjective approach to civil-military relations; military professionalism and objective civilian control was unknown in the 18th century
  
  
• The Framers' concept was to control the uses to which civilians might put military force rather than to control the military themselves
  
  If the Constitution was written 30 years later, it is very possible that the language in it about the military would be written with objective military control in mind. Additionally, the Framers were interested in subjective control / "suspicious of standing armies" because of their experience with how England used its military as other posters in this thread have explained.
  
  From Huntington's book (pg. 189-190):
  > Objective civilian control has existed in the United States but it has been the product of geographical isolation and the international balance of power, which permitted the virtual elimination of standing military forces and the exclusion of the military from political power. Civilian control in this sense has been so effective that Americans have called it a fundamental principle of their system of government. But they have been deluding themselves. They have ascribed to the Constitution a virtue of geography. Objective control has been extraconstitutional, a part of our political tradition but not of our constitutional tradition. Civilian control has, in a sense, been like the party system. The Framers did not foresee the rise of popular democracy; consequently, they did not provide for political parties. They did not foresee the rise of the military profession; consequently, they did not provide for civilian control.
  
  

>... you sure about that? Because we've been doing a splendid job for the past tens of thousands of years.

I'm pretty sure about that. Recommended literature: What Every Person Should Know About War.

relax /u/Akoustyk, I'm not arguing as much as saying there are other angles. I have read all kinds of history and watched a little as well. Here's a fun little book that I enjoyed a while back talking about creativity on the battlefield.

http://www.amazon.com/GI-Ingenuity-Improvisation-Technology-Stackpole/dp/0811734684

If you want some great war non-fiction, I am a HUGE fan of a guy Bing West.

West was a former Marine general who served as a Lt in Vietnam, and later worked as a researcher for the Rand Corporation.

A few of his non-fiction books I really liked:

"The March Up". He and another Marine vet, Ray Smith grab themselves an SUV and ride along with 1st Marines on the initial OIF invasion of Iraq. The cool part is, since West has been an infantry Lt, a Vietnam vet, a General, and a former senior staff member under Reagan, West has access to everybody. He has high level connections to get one on one interviews with politicians and Generals and enough combat street cred to pull up a chair with Enlisted Pvts and company grade officers.

 
"The Strongest Tribe" All about the reconstruction effort in Iraq, post invasion, during the occupation/stability ops phase. He pulls no punches. Speaks quite plainly about the mistakes that were made. (Bremmer, Rumsfeld, etc)

 
"The Village" The story of a CAP (Combined Action Platoon) in Vietnam. West's experience with CAP operations is actually the foundation of his understanding of how modern counterinsurgency ops (OIF) should be run. You see the influence in his later works. The idea of a CAP was, patrol through, seek and destroy op with enemy, roll out was NOT effective Counterinsurgency policy. The CAP idea was to take a unit and make them part of the local community. They would live with and among the locals for an extended period of time to secure the area. The village is the tale of a Marine unit living for a year and a half in a Vietnamese village as the local neighbor/police presence, at a cost of half of their member's lives.

Interestingly enough, "pick a neighborhood to secure, find the most tactically defensible building in it, move in for the year" pretty much describes my first OIF deployment.

A great friend of mine ran coast to coast in 100 days last year to raise money and awareness for wounded veterans. He wrote a book about his journey, and here's a picture of him giving a copy to Gary Sinise at the GE Veterans Summit last week.

Yeah sure.

One of the best books on the Sherman that is actually affordable is Steven Zaloga's Armored Thunderbolt which is a history of the development of the Sherman as well as an examination of its combat performance.

If you have a bunch of money to burn I would also recommend R.P. Hunnicutt's Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. This book spends less time on the actual combat performance of the tank and is more about the technical aspects and development of the M4, and spends a lot of time on the various other medium tanks that led up to the development of the M4. You want to know some obscure detail about the Sherman and its development? That book will have your answer. Unfortunately Sherman is like $200-$300 on Amazon. I was lucky enough to find my copy for $150. Hunnicutt also did a number of other books on the development of basically every American AFV, and they are an excellent resource, but once again, very expensive.

For a good book on how the Americans used tanks to support infantry look no further than Harry Yeides' The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II. The book really gives an excellent account of the US Army's separate tank battalions.

Yeide also wrote a very good book on American TDs called The Tank Killers: A History of America's World War II Tank Destroyer Force

Steven Zaloga has also done book comparing the Sherman to the Panther, and one analyzing US tank performance from the Battle of the Bulge to the end of the war.

The Osprey books are also really good resources for different tanks and a number of very good historians contribute to that series of books.

I thought Tank Rider had interesting perspectives. Translation was a bit literal and awkward but it was pretty clear what was meant if you had context (e.g. mortar "mines" vs shells).

You want to experiment with non-fiction you say?

Hmmm...you like history? I'd recommend books that are about smaller aspects of history.

The Mathews Men tells the story of the Merchant Marine during World War II. The men who defended the merchant vessels that carried supplies to the Allies, and the cost so many paid.

Patton and His Third Army gives a detailed account of Patton's efforts in World War II, and it's written by a man who served under him.

Or maybe you want to learn about animals?

Dangerous Beauty: Encounters with Grizzlies and Bison in Yellowstone gives detailed accounts of human-and-animal interaction in one of our most storied national parks.

The Tiger: A True Story of Vengeance and Survival goes into rich detail about a lushly forested region in Far East Russia and the people and animals who live there.

Info | Details
----|-------
Amazon Product | Muslim Americans in the Military: Centuries of Service
>Amazon donates 0.5% of the price of your eligible AmazonSmile purchases to the charitable organization of your choice. By using the link above you get to support a chairty and help keep this bot running through affiliate programs all at zero cost to you.

Just read Harry Yeide book on the separate tank battalions and the tank destroyer force in ww2
both are pretty good especially the infantry's armor as it covers the amphtrack battalions in the pacific.

That was a good book.

Edit: This one the picture is the back cover so that's what I think of whenever I see this photo.

Yes, and as Christians we of course did nothing to the Muslim populations during these periods. People like you are the reason the fighting never ends.
Also heres a book by a religious studies professor. https://www.amazon.com/Muslim-Americans-Military-Centuries-Service-ebook/dp/B01MRH83J1/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503423662&sr=8-1&keywords=9780253027214

Reflections of a Warrior. This book is bad-ass, I've read it like ten times.

https://www.amazon.com/Tank-Rider-Into-Reich-Army/dp/1853675547

My husband has this book. He's fascinated with the tank riders, Soviet soldiers who literally rode on top of tanks during WWII and had to shoot anyone who came after the tank, or jump down right into hand-t-hand-combat. Someone else here could probably tell you a lot more about it, this is just what I remember him talking about.

No, I'm not. Women in the military is a subject I am very well read on.

Here are a couple of books to get you started:

Book 1

Book 2

I haven't read any myself, but the only one that comes to mind is The Infantry's Armor by Harry Yeide. I used some of it for research and reference when I was writing up a unit history of my grandfather's WWII Pacific-based amphibian tank battalion.

What Every Person Should Know About War by Chris Hedges