Tom thanks for presenting Eliot Cohen’s new book today. Anyone familiar with his “Supreme Command – Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime’, know he is a superb writer with wonderful insight. I have my copy of ‘Conquered Into Liberty’ as yet unread while I finish a few volumes on the First World War.

Hopefully, Mr. Cohen might receive an invitation to Fort Ti for the Fort Ticonderoga Association annual May symposium on the French & Indian War which I would never miss and fly across country to attend. The author’s review of his new book and an extended question and answer period from a knowledgeable audience would be the highlight of the weekend.

For those having read Cohen’s new book I would suggest further reading of Fred Anderson’s ‘Crucible of War – The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754 – 1766’. Fred’s book must be considered the premier narrative of this most interesting period in our nations early history.

Secondly, I strongly recommend one of the best written books I have ever read and that is David Hackett Fischer’s, ‘Champlain’s Dream’, a riveting and incredibly detailed researched history of not only Champlain’s voyages and explorations but the precise area under study in Cohen’s new book.

The message of the French & Indian war is that of strategic sea power as practiced by the incomparable Royal Navy. As superb soldiers the native ‘Canadiens’ and the French regulars were along with their Indian allies it was all for naught unless they could control the sea approaches to Canada. In this respect they never had a chance. Also, what is interesting is the different relationship the Canadiens had developed with the native Indians in comparison to the British settlers. The French adapted their culture to a new native culture the British forced that culture to adapt to them.

This is the site of the Fort Ti Association for those interested: http://www.fortticonderoga.org/newsroom/detail/id/66

Cohen got it right both on the movie and the book the ‘Last of the Mohicans’. As far as the movie is concerned I knew at the time the historical advisor to that film and he explains it was a constant battle with Michael Mann to stick to some semblance of the book and history. A simple thing like the fact that their was no Highland regiment at Fort William Henry at the time didn’t bother Mann a bit. He says ‘we are going to have Highlander’s’ and that’s that! My friend told me that Mann was so often distracted with cocaine that that he is surprised Mann didn’t have the 7th Cavalry ride to the rescue. The worst experience of his life and didn’t even get paid that well.

Did this guy ever come clean on his Iraq saber-rattling or his over-the-top accusations against John Mearsheimer and Steve Walt (a frequent FP contributor)?

I am not clear why 0ohen is taken seriously in spite of his ivy-league credentials. Just another nocon as far as I can tell - can't really trust anything he says or writes, even if it took place 250 years ago!

So it isn't clear why this dude is being allowed to flog his book here. He and his colleagues got us into a series of messes we haven't yet extracted ourselves from.

Just a note a note: About 99% of people who want to visit the site of the Battle of the Snowshoes visit the wrong location. Real real location is on the far west side of the Fort Ti golf course. If any of you ever want to go there let me know and I will mark it for you on a map. That is also true for the location of the tragic death of Lord Howe (who was the real tactical leader of Abercromby's expedition) leading the British Light Infantry front he landing site. The real location is further up Trout Brook not where the historical sign is.

The book has to be a good deal better than its front cover, and I gather that it is. I can think of no recent case of authentic conquering people into liberty more powerful than the invasion of Cambodia by the communist government in Vietnam. That unhorsed the domestically murderous Pol Pot regime, much to the outrage of official Washington at the time. There, Pol Pot was thought of as the good guy. (The UN also thought the Vietnamese invasion an outrage: so much for the might of the UN in such matters. It did nothing.) The Vietnamese military , having done what was wanted in Cambodia, went home ten months after its D-day. A lesson to us all.

... and GRANT seems to think that the US was right to stand up for the unquestionable evil of the Pol Pot regime and for reasons that had nothing to do with what that regime was doing to its people. Pol Pot made Messrs al-Assad and Gaddafi look like boy scouts.

I didn't in any way argue that the Vietnamese attacked on humanitarian grounds, and I did point out that the attack had the effect -- a good effect -- of putting Pol Pot out of business; over American protests and complaints. A textbook example of a people being liberated by the conquering of the national administration that had murdered millions of them.

It's certainly true that both nations had been involved in border flurries for years. Advocates of each side believed they were right and the other guys were wrong. GRANT cannot deny my accurate account of how long it took for the Vietnamese army to launch its conquering of the murderers and getting out after doing it. He or she prefers to ignore that.

The other odd thing on the front cover of Mr Cohen's new book: this "Great Warpath". Quite like sociopath and psychopath, two little-admired folies de grandeur.

I have expressed the hope above that the book is more sensible than its cover. But perhaps it isn't. Trying to conquer into liberty is not an American uniqueness. The Vietnamese did it in Cambodia. It's exactly what the British government tried to do after Mr Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, and what Britain did in 1914 -- three years ahead of the US -- after imperial Germany overran the European lowlands.

Motives are one thing, achievements another. The Allied efforts from 1939to 1945 did not restore liberty to the Poles. Trying (allegedly) to achieve liberty through conquering the Hussein government in 2003 led about one-fifth of the Iraqi nation to flee their homeland; it seems that at most that about two million went back, to experience liberty to switch to the Shi'a brand of Islam and find they don't have their home there any more. There seems much-dimished liberty to be a Christian. Millions of Afghans who fled THEIR homeland starting in 2001 are now petitioning sundry other governments not to be repatriated by force to Afghanistan on the ground that this could mean certain and violent death Back Home -- this in many cases for reasons arising from the 2001 invasion.

... and GRANT seems to think that the US was right to stand up for the unquestionable evil of the Pol Pot regime and for reasons that had nothing to do with what that regime was doing to its people. Pol Pot made Messrs al-Assad and Gaddafi look like boy scouts.

I didn't in any way argue that the Vietnamese attacked on humanitarian grounds, and I did point out that the attack had the effect -- a good effect -- of putting Pol Pot out of business; over American protests and complaints. A textbook example of a people being liberated by the conquering of the national administration that had murdered millions of them.

It's certainly true that both nations had been involved in border flurries for years. Advocates of each side believed they were right and the other guys were wrong. GRANT cannot deny my accurate account of how long it took for the Vietnamese army to launch its conquering of the murderers and getting out after doing it. He or she prefers to ignore that.

The other odd thing on the front cover of Mr Cohen's new book: this "Great Warpath". Quite like sociopath and psychopath, two little-admired folies de grandeur.

I have expressed the hope above that the book is more sensible than its cover. But perhaps it isn't. Trying to conquer into liberty is not an American uniqueness. The Vietnamese did it in Cambodia. It's exactly what the British government tried to do after Mr Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, and what Britain did in 1914 -- three years ahead of the US -- after imperial Germany overran the European lowlands.

Motives are one thing, achievements another. The Allied efforts from 1939to 1945 did not restore liberty to the Poles. Trying (allegedly) to achieve liberty through conquering the Hussein government in 2003 led about one-fifth of the Iraqi nation to flee their homeland; it seems that at most that about two million went back, to experience liberty to switch to the Shi'a brand of Islam and find they don't have their home there any more. There seems much-dimished liberty to be a Christian. Millions of Afghans who fled THEIR homeland starting in 2001 are now petitioning sundry other governments not to be repatriated by force to Afghanistan on the ground that this could mean certain and violent death Back Home -- this in many cases for reasons arising from the 2001 invasion.

For those having read Cohen’s new book I would suggest further reading of Fred Anderson’s ‘Crucible of War – The Seven Years War and the Fate of Empire in British North America 1754 – 1766’. Fred’s book must be considered the premier narrative of this most interesting period in our nations early history. This will build links for you into the real American History that you will never forget.

I can think of no recent case of authentic conquering people into liberty more powerful than the invasion of Cambodia by the communist government in Vietnam. That unhorsed the domestically murderous Pol Pot Greg Tims regime, much to the outrage of official Washington at the time. There, Pol Pot was thought of as the good guy.