Book Review and Analysis: How to lose a war (and why) by Shimon Tzabar

Note  I have a Argentinean edition published in 2005, but from what  I've seen on line is that in other International editions the book is called "The White Flag Principal: How to lose a war (and why)

Shimon Tzabar 2005

Author:Shimon Tzabar, the author himself is probably one of the most interesting aspects of this book, it's 
to take a peak into the writers past, which is explained in first person in the prologue of this book, Shimon writes that he  was born in Tel Aviv in 1926, that he was a member of  a couple Jewish military organization/terrorist groups Stern Gang, Etzel and Hagana fighting the British occupation up to the Second world war ( the book actually uses the word terrorist groups to describe the organization Shimon took part of). he fought in Israel's First three wars and immigrated to Great Britain where he landed a job as a librarian in the British Museum and also he became a journalist over time.

Some core ideas of the Book: (Everything  in this book is pretty debatable):

So here we go with this curious book:  How to lose a war, and why this is a good Idea, which author sustains the idea that the loser in a war tends to be better off than the victor, that ends up bogged down by their post war responsibilities,  now the  example of the Iraq war, the one George W Bush started,  popped in my head,  which  invalidates most of this book if you sit down to analyze it in detail using the core arguments of this book, even though this book is a interesting read  and at moments it's  pretty fun, theoretically this book goes nowhere.

The book presupposes the actors in conflict are mostly States that have territories, or that conflict revolves around the possession of land, and that a war has only two sides that are in conflict, but for example the Syrian civil  war that has been raging on since the early days of the Arab spring, and that has been internationalizing even since, at least has 4 or 5 sides confronting each  other.

The author affirms that there is only one constant in war that an actor can be absolutely control, giving up and capitulating, which very interesting concept, victory depends on defeat of the but not the other way around, defeat generates rights and obligations for the winner in a conflict, but with one observation from my behalf only if they choose to follow international law, but  the actor can possibly  for religious reasons (for example) is hell bent   annihilate you, so capitulating isn't an option. 

The writer establishes two types of enemies, the ones you  have shared frontiers with and  the  enemies that we do not share a frontiers with. Book only establishes that States can only have enemies that are other States, or with some interpretation international actors that are  aspiring to be States, so  groups like Al Qaeda cannot fit in the concept that Shimon is trying to build.

Tzabar  establishes that most effective means to create any enemy is to use territorial reclamation against another State,( I must explain in a important  level  absurdity the book recommends that a head of State must find an enemy in the first place, so you can get defeated so good fortune can follow). But I must recognize that territorial spats can be effective, Russia make a good use of this strategy, but terrorism is probably the most effective method to  make an enemy pretty quick. There are  three ways to reclaim a territory, for the author, legally (through historic documents), emotional reclamation through speeches and accidently, but the author seems to have forgotten the most effective way of gaining an enemy direct occupation of its territory. 

The Bad:

Authors establishes countries like Japan and Germany are better off since their defeat pretty much ignoring the historical context when this happened, ignoring the tremendous human cost these countries suffer and caused during and after the wars , and  omitting that there was a strong political will from the central western counties the help these countries from allying themselves with the USSR. Another example the Afghanistan, explaining that the country is better off since the fall of the Taliban, but this isn't the best example, it has been 14 years since the US invasion, and the Taliban are still fighting to take over the country. Georgia lost a short war against Russia in 2008 loosing part of its territory and up till today this small country is in a pretty complicated situation.

Now using the logic you need a enemy to lose a war, enemies tend to unite population of a State, producing a period where the peoples will be strong,  united and with high moral, in this book this is a bad thing, so the head of State must generate internal strife to make sure to lose the war. The author offers a few examples that a head of State can do like adopt a official religion and impose it on every one or just let immigrants in, and the way the author presents this point is so political incorrect that I can't believe it especial being the fact the author is a immigrated that moved from Israel to Great Britain.

From page 63 to page 145 (the end of the book), there  isn't anything  very relevant, nothing goes in the direction of proving the Shimon's affirmation that losing a conflict is better than winning, even though there are a couple of historical anecdotes the are pretty fun to read.

Book somewhat confusing at moments you do not understand if the author is talking seriously or he's being ironic, maybe there are translation issue with this book  I have a edition in Spanish, but most of this book just doesn't make sense.

Establishes a hypothesis that is never answered in the book, actual there is no conclusion.

Overall Rating: 5 out of 10

Guys read this book  and give me your opinions