The American War in Afghanistan, is not the first time in history that a forceing country has invaded a country in hope of change and peace. There is a sense of high demand behind Into the Land of Bones, in which Frank Holt describes the campaigns of Alexander the Great in Bactria . To understand this demand, it is relevant to note that the author is American. The United States is currently fighting a war in Afghanistan and Holt wants to explain that, although the troops are fighting with "skill, dedication, honor, or heroism", they "simply do not have history on their side" (page xii). The army and war style reflects this axiom.
The present reviewer, who lives in a country that has also sent troops to Afghanistan, fully agrees with Holt that historians have a duty to inform the people of the risks in theater of operation. Whatever one may
…show more content…
The lesson is that the troops in Afghanistan today can be the master of any battlefield, and still lose the war. A well tactical win can be a strategic defeat. The soldiers who invaded Afghanistan to liberate it from the Taliban do not have history on their side. This written text will find its way to one of the two audiences for which Holt is writing. The other group he has in mind is the community of scholars. Scholors will find much in the Land of Bones that they already know from Holt's earlier publications, such as Alexander the Great and Bactria. These arguments return in the Land of Bones, but there is a difference in emphasis. Holt stresses the religious factor a bit more, that may have to do with the fact that economic history is less popular than it was twenty years ago. The fact that the United States soldiers are in Afghanistan to fight against extremist living among the native