A Look at Patton: A Genius for War by Carlo D’Este

Posted on June 14, 2026 by billmanzi

Patton: A Genius for WarPatton: A Genius for War by Carlo D’Este

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


I came across this book after seeing a recommendation in the Wall Street Journal that called it, by memory, the best book on Patton. Seemed obvious to me, and might have been mentioned in the article, that the very famous movie on Patton, was sourced in part, from this work. After reading it I would say that the WSJ article got it right. D’Este brings together an enormous amount of research to produce a portrait that is neither hagiography nor indictment, but rather a serious examination of a complicated man whose strengths and flaws were both on full display throughout his military career.

Most Americans know George S. Patton through legend. He is remembered for his profanity, his pearl-handled pistols, his aggressive battlefield tactics, and his larger-than-life personality. D’Este goes well beyond the mythology. He traces Patton’s development from his privileged California upbringing through his early military service, his participation in the expedition against Pancho Villa, his pioneering work with tanks during the First World War, and ultimately his rise to prominence during the campaigns of North Africa, Sicily, France, and Germany. The result is a much richer understanding of how Patton became the commander who would leave such a profound mark on American military history.

One of the great strengths of the book is its willingness to examine both Patton’s extraordinary talents and his significant shortcomings. There is little doubt that Patton possessed a remarkable instinct for operational warfare. His understanding of mobility, logistics, and momentum often placed him ahead of many of his contemporaries. His rapid movement during the breakout from Normandy and his dramatic relief of the encircled forces at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge stand as some of the most impressive military achievements of the war. D’Este makes a compelling case that Patton’s ability to move and sustain large formations at high speed was unmatched among Allied commanders. But Patton was not universally well thought of, especially by the British. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Sir Allen Brooke said, after the war:

“My meeting with Patton had been of great interest. I had already heard of him, but must confess that his swashbuckling personality exceeded my expectation. I did not form any high opinion of him, nor had I any reason to alter this view at any later date. A dashing, courageous, wild and unbalanced leader, good for operations requiring thrust and push but at a loss in any operation requiring skill and judgement.”

D’Este, Carlo “Patton: A Genius for War” pg. 451

A somewhat unfair estimation of Patton’s talents, but even Brooke had to acknowledge Patton’s unmatched ability to move armies over large distances in a rapid way, and immediately go on the attack.

Along the same lines, D’Este does not ignore the characteristics that frequently got Patton into trouble. His impulsiveness, his tendency toward indiscreet public statements, and his sometimes abrasive treatment of both subordinates and peers repeatedly created political problems for his superiors. The infamous slapping incidents in Sicily receive considerable attention, as they should, because they reveal a commander whose understanding of combat stress lagged behind his understanding of battlefield maneuver. D’Este is particularly effective in showing how Patton’s personality could simultaneously inspire fierce loyalty among many soldiers while generating deep concern among political leaders and fellow officers.

The supporting cast in this volume is extraordinary. Patton’s career intersected with many of the giants of the Second World War, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, Omar Bradley, Bernard Montgomery, George C. Marshall, and Douglas MacArthur. D’Este does an excellent job of placing Patton within this broader constellation of military leadership and examining how his relationships with these figures shaped both his opportunities and his frustrations. Particularly interesting is the discussion of his complicated relationship with Eisenhower, whose political skills often balanced Patton’s more volatile nature. Of course Ike had numerous problems with Patton, who cared little for the many political balls Eisenhower had to keep in the air. I started the book eager to understand what the relationship was between Patton and Bernard Montgomery, which had been established over time as hostile, with Patton (at least in America) being the dynamic hard charging leader, and Monty being the ego driven dilettante, only looking to get personal glory at the expense of the overall war effort, and a not very effective commander. Monty has, in the U.S. anyway, become a caricature. As with all memes developed and ingrained over years the truth is far from what the belief has become.

“However, although a feud between the two most controversial Allied generals over the war’s most contentious issues makes great copy, it does not always make good history. The plain fact is that the two generals held a grudging respect for each other, at least until the post-Normandy period, when events put them farther and farther from personal contact and generated bad feeling, primarily as the result of rumors and thirdhand information. … Patton thought Montgomery was perhaps the best of the British generals but simply not bold enough to bring off Overlord, which, in Patton’s opinion, required a commander with the courage of a riverboat gambler and the iron will of a Napoleon.”

D’Este, Carlo “Patton: A Genius for War” pg. 599

The relationship was much more nuanced than is commonly believed, and Monty, like Patton, had his weaknesses but was a good commander.

The author also succeeds in placing Patton within the larger strategic debates of the war. Readers are given a clear understanding of the disagreements over operational priorities, the competition for resources among Allied commanders, and the difficult decisions confronting leaders attempting to defeat Germany as quickly as possible. Patton emerges not simply as a battlefield commander, but as an important participant in the larger strategic conversation that shaped the Allied victory.

A Patton critic, U.S. General Omar Bradley, was simply amazed at Patton’s ability to move Third Army the way he did.

The machinery was now in motion to finish what Cobra had started. Although Bradley later denigrated Patton’s accomplishments during this crucial period of the war, he ‘put the Third Army on that one road south, pushing 200,000 men and 40,000 vehicles through what amounted to a straw’ at Avranches: Every manual on road movement was ground into the dust. He and his staff did what the whole world knew couldn’t be done: it was flat impossible to put a whole army out on a narrow two-lane road and move it at high speed. Everything was going to come to a screeching halt. He even intermingled units. Yet out of the other end of the straw came divisions, intact and ready to fight. If anybody else could have done it, no one ever got that man’s name.

D’Este, Carlo “Patton: A Genius for War” pg. 627

That praise directly undercuts the Brooke criticism cited above. Patton could not only fight but most certainly had “skill and judgement.”

In looking at the positive aspects of Patton I would refer all to the description of the Allied response to the surprise German attack on the western front (the Battle of the Bulge.) On page 682 you see Patton showing up for the critical allied meeting on the military response, and shocking the room by answering an inquiry from Ike on when he could launch a counter-attack in force by saying 48 hours. Ike did not, at first, accept that as a serious answer, but Ike was wrong. Patton had devised three distinct battle plans, understanding that the meeting discussion could produce any one of a number of options. He informed Ike that his staff was waiting for word from him, in code, to implement one of the options. Omar Bradley was described as a “bystander.” Bradley described Patton’s actions:

“True to his boast at Verdun, Patton, having turned his Third Army ninety degrees, attacked on December 22. His generalship during this difficult maneuver was magnificent. One of the most brilliant performances by any commander on either side in World War II. It was absolutely his cup of tea-rapid, open warfare combined with noble purpose and difficult goals. He relished every minute of it, knowing full well that this mission, if nothing else, would guarantee him a place of high honor in the annals of the U.S. Army.”

D’Este, Carlo “Patton: A Genius for War” pg. 684

The book humanizes Patton without diminishing him. D’Este reveals a man who was deeply studied in military history, intensely ambitious, frequently insecure, and absolutely convinced of his own destiny. His belief in reincarnation, his fascination with the great captains of history, and his relentless drive for achievement all contribute to a portrait that is as fascinating psychologically as it is militarily.

For the student of military history, this book is essential. D’Este neither worships nor condemns his subject. Instead, he presents Patton as he was: a brilliant and deeply flawed commander whose contributions to Allied victory were substantial and whose personality ensured that he would remain one of the most discussed military leaders of the twentieth century. Love him or criticize him, George Patton left an indelible mark on the history of modern warfare, and Patton: A Genius for War remains one of the finest examinations of that remarkable life. A must read for anyone interested in military leadership, World War II, or the enduring relationship between personality and command.




View all my reviews

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

A D-Day Remembrance

Posted on June 6, 2026 by billmanzi

D-Day: The Longest Day That Changed the World

On June 6, 1944, Allied forces crossed the English Channel and launched the largest amphibious invasion in military history. The operation, forever known as D-Day, opened the long-awaited Western Front against Nazi Germany and marked the beginning of the liberation of occupied Europe.

More than 156,000 Allied soldiers, sailors, and airmen participated in the assault on the beaches of Normandy. Many would never return home. Their courage on what became known as “The Longest Day” altered the course of World War II and helped secure the eventual defeat of Adolf Hitler’s regime.

On this anniversary of D-Day, we remember not only a remarkable military achievement, but also the extraordinary sacrifices made by those who stormed the beaches of Normandy under fire.

The Allied Forces

The invasion, officially designated Operation Overlord, involved troops from several Allied nations, led primarily by the United States, Great Britain, and Canada.

The overall commander of the operation was General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force. Eisenhower bore ultimate responsibility for the success or failure of the invasion and made the momentous decision to proceed despite uncertain weather conditions.

Ground forces were commanded by British General Bernard Montgomery, while naval forces were directed by Admiral Bertram Ramsay and air operations by Air Chief Marshal Trafford Leigh-Mallory.

Approximately 156,000 Allied troops landed in Normandy on June 6, 1944.

The five assault beaches were assigned as follows:

  • Utah Beach – United States Army
  • Omaha Beach – United States Army
  • Gold Beach – British Army
  • Juno Beach – Canadian Army
  • Sword Beach – British Army

Supporting the landings were more than 5,000 ships and landing craft, nearly 11,000 aircraft, and tens of thousands of sailors, airmen, engineers, medics, and support personnel. The scale of the operation was unprecedented and remains one of the greatest logistical achievements in military history.

The German Defenders

The German forces defending Normandy were part of Adolf Hitler’s Atlantic Wall, an extensive network of fortifications stretching along the coast of Western Europe.

The overall German commander in France was Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, while Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, famed for his campaigns in North Africa, was responsible for strengthening the coastal defenses.

Rommel believed that the invasion had to be stopped at the water’s edge. He directed the placement of mines, beach obstacles, artillery positions, bunkers, and machine-gun nests designed to destroy Allied forces before they could establish a foothold.

Despite these preparations, German commanders remained uncertain where the invasion would occur. Through an elaborate deception campaign, Allied planners convinced many German leaders that the main attack would strike near Pas-de-Calais rather than Normandy.

Casualties

The cost of D-Day was severe.

Allied Casualties

On June 6 alone, Allied forces suffered approximately:

  • 4,400 killed
  • More than 10,000 total casualties, including wounded and missing

American forces endured the heaviest losses at Omaha Beach, where German defenses remained largely intact and troops were subjected to devastating machine-gun and artillery fire.

Many landing craft were destroyed before reaching shore. Others delivered soldiers into deep water under enemy fire. In numerous sectors, units became disorganized, officers were killed, and communications failed. Yet small groups of soldiers pushed forward, scaling bluffs, attacking fortified positions, and creating the breakthroughs necessary for success.

German Casualties

German casualties are more difficult to determine precisely, but historians generally estimate:

  • Approximately 4,000 to 9,000 casualties, including killed, wounded, missing, and captured

Unlike the Allies, Germany could not easily replace these losses, particularly among experienced officers and non-commissioned officers.

Why D-Day Mattered

The strategic significance of D-Day cannot be overstated.

Establishing a Western Front

For years, Nazi Germany had concentrated much of its military power against the Soviet Union in the east. The Normandy invasion opened a major Western Front, forcing Germany to fight a large-scale war on multiple fronts simultaneously.

Beginning the Liberation of France

The successful landings established a foothold in Western Europe. Within weeks, Allied forces were breaking out of Normandy, and by August 1944 Paris had been liberated after four years of Nazi occupation.

Accelerating Germany’s Defeat

Operation Overlord placed Allied armies directly on the European continent. The advance through France, Belgium, and the Netherlands would eventually carry Allied troops into Germany itself, helping bring the war in Europe to a close less than a year later.

Demonstrating Allied Unity

D-Day showcased extraordinary cooperation among Allied nations. Americans, British, Canadians, Free French forces, and soldiers from many other nations fought together in pursuit of a common goal: the defeat of Nazi tyranny.

The Human Dimension

Maps and casualty figures tell only part of the story.

Many of the men who stormed the beaches were in their late teens or early twenties. They endured rough seas, enemy fire, confusion, and fear. For many, D-Day was their first experience in combat.

At Omaha Beach, entire units suffered devastating losses within minutes. Yet survivors regrouped, found gaps in the German defenses, and continued forward.

Airborne troops dropped behind enemy lines during the night before the invasion often found themselves isolated and scattered across the Norman countryside. Small groups formed impromptu fighting units and carried out their missions despite confusion and separation from their parent commands.

Acts of heroism occurred throughout the invasion. Soldiers carried wounded comrades to safety. Engineers cleared minefields under direct fire. Sailors brought their vessels dangerously close to shore to support troops pinned down on the beaches. Aircrews flew through intense anti-aircraft fire to support the operation.

Success was achieved not through a single dramatic moment, but through thousands of acts of courage performed by ordinary men facing extraordinary circumstances.

A Legacy of Sacrifice

Today, more than eight decades later, D-Day remains one of history’s greatest examples of courage under fire. The men who landed at Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno, and Sword Beaches faced daunting odds, yet they pressed forward because the success of the mission—and the future of Europe—depended upon them.

The freedom enjoyed today across much of Europe owes much to the sacrifices made on those beaches and in the fields and villages beyond them. As we mark the anniversary of June 6, 1944, we honor the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who fought that day, especially those who gave their lives in service to a cause larger than themselves.

The white crosses and Stars of David at the Normandy American Cemetery overlook the very shores where so many young Americans fought and died. They stand as a lasting reminder that freedom carries a cost, and that generations before us were willing to pay that price.

Their names may fade from memory, but their achievement never should. The story of D-Day remains a reminder that freedom often depends upon the courage of ordinary people called to perform extraordinary deeds.

On this anniversary of D-Day, we remember them with gratitude, respect, and humility.

Posted in History | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Tony Blair on the Problems of Labour: Lessons for Democrats?

Posted on June 6, 2026 by billmanzi

Tony Blair has written a sharp warning to Britain’s Labour Party, but much of it could be mailed directly to the American Democratic Party.

His central point is simple: a party cannot win the future by retreating into the comfort zone of its own internal coalition. Labour, he argues, risks governing as “Just Labour” — familiar, cautious, soft-left, and insufficiently serious about growth, technology, national power, welfare reform, and the practical business of making government work.

That problem is not uniquely British.

American Democrats face a similar danger. They often speak as though the country is waiting for a purer version of progressive politics, when much of the country is asking for competence, economic seriousness, public order, border control, institutional reform, and some visible evidence that government can still deliver. Like Labour, Democrats have a tendency to confuse the concerns of their most engaged activists with the concerns of persuadable voters. Blair offers his idea on what a successful government does:

They start with an idea, a project, a governing purpose, an analysis of what is wrong and a plan to put it right…It is efficacy. It is the ability to get big things done. To have leaders who are not problem-managers but problem-solvers.

Tony Blair “The Labour Party is Playing With Fire Over Its Future and the Future of the Country” Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

That is the lesson Democrats ought to absorb.

The future will not be won by defending every existing program, every institutional ally, or every cultural position that has become fashionable inside the party. Nor will it be won by simply denouncing Trumpism. Voters already know the defects of Trumpism. What they want to know is whether Democrats have a governing project equal to the moment. If given a chance to govern again will the Democrats be able to deliver on the issues important to the American people? I do not wish to revisit the review of the Ezra Klein book “Abundance” but it is, in my view, something that everyone should be looking at. Passing a bill is great, but when there is no follow-up there is just frustration within the electorate that leads to some bad results. I clipped the below from my review of the book.

“A difficulty that Biden and Harris had in trying to run on their record in 2024 was that few communities were yet seeing benefit from all this construction their policies were meant to spark. The infrastructure bill, for instance, included $7.5 billion to build a national network of 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations; by March 2024-more than two years after the bill was passed-only seven new chargers were up and running”

Klein, Ezra, Thompson, Derek: Abundance pg. 213

Blair identifies two great forces reshaping politics: geopolitical competition and artificial intelligence. In America, those forces are even more central. China, industrial policy, defense capacity, energy, immigration, education, public safety, and the future of work are not side issues. They are the main event.

The Democratic Party’s peril is that it may mistake resistance for purpose. Resistance can win an election. It cannot govern a country for long.

Blair’s advocacy for the center of the political spectrum seems like an anachronism to many, but he makes as strong as a case as can be made today for occupying the political center ground.

The best political space from which this can be achieved is what I call the Radical Centre.

The centre – properly defined – is where you put policy first and politics last. So, you begin with the question: what is the right answer? And only once you have that do you engage in the political task of persuading people of it.

Tony Blair “The Labour Party is Playing With Fire Over Its Future and the Future of the Country” Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

In the United States today the political center, in light of the massive gerrymandering of Congressional districts, can be a difficult place to live, as several GOP Senators (Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy) have found. It brings to mind the old Jim Hightower observation that “There’s nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.” Despite that, and even though I recognize that the advice is not easily transferrable to the U.S., it is my strong belief that actual problem solving and being able to show folks that government is actually succeeding in key areas can create its own political momentum and space to live.

Blair’s warning to Labour is therefore a warning to Democrats as well: parties that put internal politics ahead of national strategy eventually lose both the argument and the country. The task is not to move left or right by reflex. The task is to make government work once more.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

The Battle of Iwo Jima

Posted on May 25, 2026 by billmanzi

Memorial Day Remembrance

As Americans pause on Memorial Day to remember those who gave their lives in service to the nation, few battles better symbolize sacrifice, determination, and battlefield courage than the Battle of Iwo Jima. I have read the three book series on the war in the Pacific by Ian Toll, which was really outstanding. The third book in the series, “Twilight of the Gods: War in the Western Pacific 1944-1945” deals with Iwo Jima. Some of this material is sourced from that book.

Fought between February 19 and March 26, 1945, Iwo Jima was one of the bloodiest and most strategically significant engagements of the Pacific Theater in World War II. This small volcanic island, only about eight square miles in size, became the scene of an extraordinary clash between American and Japanese forces in the final months of the war.

American Forces Involved

The assault on Iwo Jima was principally a United States Marine Corps operation, supported by the United States Navy and Army Air Forces.

The primary American ground combat units included:

  • 3rd Marine Division
  • 4th Marine Division
  • 5th Marine Division

These forces formed the V Amphibious Corps, under the command of Lieutenant General Holland M. “Howlin’ Mad” Smith, one of the Marine Corps’ most aggressive and respected combat commanders.

The direct commander of the landing operation itself was Major General Harry Schmidt, commanding V Amphibious Corps during the battle.

Naval support was immense. The U.S. Navy provided pre-invasion bombardment, troop transport, carrier aviation, logistics support, and offshore firepower from battleships and cruisers. Key naval leadership included Admiral Raymond Spruance, commander of the broader Pacific operation, and Vice Admiral Richmond Kelly Turner, overseeing amphibious forces.

The U.S. Army Air Forces also played a critical supporting role, both before and after the battle.

In total, roughly 70,000 American personnel participated in the operation.

The Japanese Commander

Defending Iwo Jima was General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, one of Japan’s most capable military commanders.

Kuribayashi understood that Japan could not win a conventional defense of the island. Rather than attempting to repel the Americans at the shoreline—as had often been Japanese doctrine—he constructed a deeply layered defensive network of tunnels, bunkers, hidden artillery positions, machine-gun nests, and fortified caves.

His strategy was brutally effective.

Instead of suicidal banzai charges, Kuribayashi ordered disciplined resistance designed to inflict maximum casualties. American troops who expected the initial bombardment to have neutralized Japanese defenses instead encountered a hidden, intact enemy prepared for a fight to the death.

Kuribayashi reportedly told his troops they should each kill ten Americans before dying.

Casualties

The human cost was staggering.

American Casualties

American losses totaled approximately:

  • 6,821 killed
  • 19,000+ wounded
  • More than 26,000 total casualties

Iwo Jima remains one of the few Marine Corps battles in which American casualties exceeded those of the defending Japanese force in total numbers.

Among the dead were Marines, Navy corpsmen serving alongside Marines, sailors, and airmen supporting the operation.

The iconic photograph of the flag raising atop Mount Suribachi, taken by Joe Rosenthal, immortalized the battle—but it can obscure the grim reality that the battle continued for more than a month after that moment.

Japanese Casualties

Japanese losses were catastrophic:

  • Approximately 18,000–21,000 killed
  • Only about 200–1,000 captured alive (depending on accounting)

Most Japanese defenders fought to the death.

General Kuribayashi himself was killed near the end of the battle, though exact circumstances remain uncertain.

Why Iwo Jima Mattered

The strategic importance of Iwo Jima was substantial.

Located roughly halfway between the Mariana Islands and mainland Japan, Iwo Jima served as a Japanese early warning station and defensive outpost.

Its capture offered several key advantages:

1. Emergency Landing Field for American Bombers

American B-29 Superfortress bombers conducting raids against Japan flew long, dangerous missions from bases in the Marianas.

Damaged aircraft often had nowhere safe to land.

Once captured, Iwo Jima became an emergency landing field for crippled bombers returning from Japan, ultimately saving thousands of American aircrew lives.

2. Elimination of Japanese Early Warning Capability

Japanese radar installations on Iwo Jima provided advance warning of incoming American bombing raids.

Capturing the island removed that capability and complicated Japan’s air defense network.

3. Fighter Escort Base

The island became a base for American fighter aircraft, particularly P-51 Mustangs, allowing escort coverage for bomber missions against Japan.

This improved American air effectiveness in the closing months of the war.

4. Stepping Stone Toward Japan

Iwo Jima was part of the island-hopping campaign that moved American forces ever closer to the Japanese home islands.

Its capture signaled that the war had entered its final and most intense phase.

The Nature of the Battle

Iwo Jima was uniquely brutal.

The island’s volcanic ash made movement difficult, preventing Marines from digging effective foxholes and slowing equipment.

Japanese defenses were largely underground and often invisible until they opened fire.

Every yard had to be taken by direct assault.

Flamethrowers, grenades, demolitions, tanks, naval gunfire, and close combat defined the struggle.

The battle became a grim war of attrition.

Even after Mount Suribachi fell, northern portions of the island remained fiercely defended.

The Medal of Honor was awarded to 27 servicemen for actions at Iwo Jima—more than for any other single battle in Marine Corps history.

Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz famously observed:

“Among the Americans who served on Iwo Island, uncommon valor was a common virtue.”

Memorial Day Reflection

Iwo Jima was not merely a military victory. It was a human ordeal measured in sacrifice.

Thousands of young Americans—many barely out of high school—crossed an ocean, stormed black volcanic beaches under murderous fire, and fought yard by yard against an enemy determined not to surrender.

Many never came home.

This Memorial Day, we honor the Marines, sailors, corpsmen, soldiers, and airmen who gave their lives at Iwo Jima. Their courage helped bring a terrible war to its conclusion, but the cost was written in blood.

The freedoms Americans enjoy today were preserved, in part, by men who climbed into gunfire on a hostile island half a world away and never saw home again.

May their sacrifice never be forgotten.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Seabrook Memorial Day Celebration 2026

Posted on May 25, 2026 by billmanzi

Seabrook held its Memorial Day Celebration on Sunday May 24, 2026 in some light drizzle but the ceremony and Parade went flawlessly. A big thank you to Recreation Director Cassandra Carter, who was in charge of the event. Special thanks to Seabrook Legion Raymond Walton Post 70 for all of their help and hospitality. Thanks to the Seabrook DPW for all of their hard work preparing the ceremony site, and thank you to Seabrook Fire for having a big contingent marching, and to the Seabrook Police for all of their work making sure the parade route was secure. It was a privilege to have Gold Star mother Florence Souther on hand for the event. Florence lost her son Douglas Souther Jr. in the Vietnam conflict. Thanks to New Hampshire Legion Commander Wayne Perra for being the guest speaker. Thank you to the Board of Selectmen, who were all on hand to speak and to honor those who gave their lives in service to our country.

Posted in Seabrook | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Town of Seabrook 2025 Water Sewer Reports

Posted on May 23, 2026 by billmanzi

Town Releases 2025 Water and Sewer System Reports

The Town of Seabrook has released its 2025 annual Water and Sewer System Reports, providing residents and ratepayers with an overview of operational performance and financial results for both utility systems.

These reports continue the Town’s effort to provide clear annual reporting on enterprise utility operations, including system usage, revenues, operational trends, and future financial obligations.

Highlights from the 2025 reports include:

  • Water Fund revenue of approximately $3.44 million, exceeding budget projections.
  • Sewer Fund revenue of approximately $3.57 million, also exceeding budget projections.
  • Continued stable operations across both systems.
  • Identification of key operational focus areas, including water loss reduction and continued management of sewer infiltration and inflow (I&I).
  • Discussion of major infrastructure investments and the impact of new debt service obligations beginning in Fiscal Year 2026.

While 2025 reflects strong financial performance in both enterprise systems, the reports note that significant capital investments in water and sewer infrastructure will materially increase annual debt service beginning in 2026.

The Town believes transparent reporting is important as these utility systems continue to operate as fully enterprise-funded services.

The full reports are available below.

William M. Manzi III
Town Manager

Water Report 2025Download
Sewer_Report_2025_Approved_Amended_CorrectedDownload
Posted in Seabrook | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Master Diplomat: A Look at Zhou Enlai A Life by Chen Jian

Posted on May 23, 2026 by billmanzi

Zhou Enlai: A Life by Chen Jian

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


For those interested in modern Chinese history, revolutionary politics, or the personalities who shaped the twentieth century, Zhou Enlai: A Life by Chen Jian is an important and highly worthwhile work. Zhou Enlai remains one of the most fascinating and elusive political figures of the modern era, admired by many as the sophisticated, pragmatic, and humane face of the Chinese Communist leadership. That reputation does not take away from the fact that Zhou was a committed cadre of the Chinese Communist Party, whose administrative skill and enormous work ethic carried the Party during some very dark times after the assumption of power in 1949.
The challenge in writing about Zhou Enlai is that he has often been viewed through two sharply contrasting lenses. In the West, he has frequently been remembered as the polished diplomat who helped engineer the opening to the United States, managing the historic encounter with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger with extraordinary skill. Within China, he has often been portrayed as the loyal but moderating hand within a revolutionary system that frequently descended into ideological excess and political violence. Chen does not fully accept either simplified version, and that is to the book’s credit. Instead, he presents Zhou as a deeply committed revolutionary whose pragmatism existed not in opposition to the Communist project, but in service to it.

An enormous amount of history is compressed into Zhou’s life. His early intellectual development amid the collapse of imperial China, the revolutionary ferment of the May Fourth era, the long struggle for Communist survival, the civil war, the establishment of the People’s Republic, the Korean War, the Sino-Soviet split, the chaos of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, and ultimately the diplomatic opening to the United States all receive substantial attention. Any one of these topics could easily fill a separate volume, and Chen succeeds in showing how Zhou’s political identity evolved across these successive crises while remaining rooted in a profound loyalty to the revolutionary cause.

What makes the book especially compelling is its refusal to indulge in comforting myths. Zhou has often benefited from favorable comparisons to Mao Zedong, particularly because Mao’s catastrophic ideological campaigns make almost anyone around him appear comparatively restrained. That restraint, though well disguised, was discernible enough to get him in constant hot water at times when the Chinese Communist Party was undertaking some of Chairman Mao’s great ideological campaigns, like the Cultural Revolution. Zhou’s attempts to soften the very sharp edges of some of Mao’s undertakings were called out by many, and though in a position of power he was forced, on several occasions, to submit harsh self criticisms. He was always clever enough to stay slightly ahead of the ideological mob, and though Mao himself was the hand behind much of the Zhou criticism he realized the essential role played by “the Premier” and never let the attacks get to the point where Zhou was eliminated from government. He was, for Mao, the indispensable man.

Chen’s analysis of Zhou’s diplomatic abilities is especially strong. Zhou’s role in China’s external relations required navigating relationships with some of the most consequential figures of the twentieth century, including Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, John F. Kennedy, Nixon, and Kissinger. His performance in diplomacy was undeniably extraordinary, combining patience, tactical skill, and a clear understanding of political leverage. Very few have left such a massive legacy of achievement. With the recent trip to China just concluded by President Donald Trump many questions have arisen on the American policy towards Taiwan. Zhou, from the Chinese side, was the principal architect of the China/U.S. “understanding” on Taiwan. That alone is worth a few words. In 1960, under the guidance of Zhou:

“At a Politburo meeting in May CCP leaders decided to adopt a new policy line with the understanding that ‘it is better to put Taiwan in the hands of Chiang and his son than to allow it to be controlled by the Americans.’ They elaborated that ‘the liberation of Taiwan cannot be done in a hurry. If not by this generation, it could be done by the next generation once conditions have been gradually created and the right moment has come.’”

Chen Jian Zhou Enlai A Life pg. 460

The widely quoted dictum by Deng Xiaoping, “hide your strength, bide your time” which came much later, owes some intellectual debt to Zhou. When both the Nixon Administration and the Chinese determined that it was time for the (non) relationship to move from open hostility to mutual accommodation it was Zhou who was the chief engineer of the rapprochement, and who with Henry Kissinger devised the Shanghai Communique, dealing with not only the Taiwan issue but a whole host of issues between the countries. The communique is one of the most remarkable diplomatic efforts ever undertaken, and the finessing of the Taiwan issue by Zhou and Kissinger showed lesser diplomats how to achieve agreement even when it appears that no agreement is possible. The Taiwan finesse read:

“The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position.”

The Shanghai Communique 1972

That position has never changed. Zhou and Kissinger’s formulation, while placed under stress at times, has stood the test of time.

Henry Kissinger, who dealt with so many of the giant figures of his era, had this to say about Zhou.

“In some sixty years of public life, I have encountered no more compelling figure than Zhou Enlai.”

Kissinger, Henry “On China” pg. 241.

One further anecdote from Kissinger reflects his deep respect for Zhou’s diplomatic skills. In advance of the opening to China, and before real contact had been made between the parties, Zhou engineered a visit to Beijing by Edgar Snow, a journalist with a friendly relationship with Mao. Zhou arranged for Snow to be photographed with Mao at the National Day celebration, leaving a signal for the U.S. that they might be open to a change in the relationship.

“Yet the message went unnoticed by Kissinger, who later acknowledged that the Chinese ‘overestimated our subtlety.’”

Chen Jian Zhou Enlai A Life pg. 628

The book, as mentioned, compresses an immense life central to the development of modern China into one volume. There is much more to the Zhou story than the opening to America. I have highlighted that part of his story because I am more familiar with it, but Zhou’s life story encompasses the rise of China.

For those looking for a deeper understanding of China this book is essential. It neither canonizes Zhou as the wise moderate nor condemns him as merely another authoritarian functionary. Instead, it presents a portrait of a man of remarkable discipline, intellect, and political skill who devoted those gifts to a revolutionary enterprise that produced both historic transformation and immense human suffering.

Zhou Enlai remains one of history’s most enigmatic political figures, and Chen Jian does not entirely unlock the full story. But he does provide a thoughtful, rigorous, and insightful examination of a man whose influence on modern China—and indeed on the global balance of power—was immense. A must read for serious students of history, diplomacy, and modern China.

/






View all my reviews

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Look at Cobra II The Invasion of Iraq

Posted on May 3, 2026 by billmanzi

Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq by Michael R. Gordon

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This book, due to its length and extraordinary level of operational and strategic detail, will not be for everyone. But for those who want a serious and deeply informed understanding of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Cobra II is an essential work. Written by Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, the book provides a comprehensive account of the planning, execution, and aftermath of the Iraq War, and stands as one of the most authoritative narratives on the subject. General George Patton’s Third Army, in its World War II drive from Normandy, named the operation Cobra. Lt. General David McKiernan, the Third Army commander, decided to name the drive to Baghdad Cobra II. You can’t go wrong emulating Patton.

An enormous amount of material is covered here, from the internal debates within the administration of George W. Bush, to the Pentagon’s war planning under Donald Rumsfeld, to the execution of the “light footprint” invasion strategy that toppled Saddam Hussein’s regime with remarkable speed. The authors carefully trace the evolution of the war plan, including the tension between traditional military doctrine and Rumsfeld’s push for a leaner, faster force, and the consequences of those decisions as American troops moved rapidly toward Baghdad. Equally important is the book’s examination of what was not adequately planned—the postwar occupation—which ultimately proved to be far more difficult and consequential than the invasion itself. That failure was highlighted repeatedly. Marine General Anthony Zinni had his own thoughts.

“The Jordanians and Kuwaitis, in particular, were concerned that Saddam’s days might be numbered and that Iraq might implode if he was toppled, leading to chaos on their frontier. Zinni was also concerned that Iraq could shatter and he then would be called on to restore order and keep the nation from fragmenting along ethnic lines. Containing Saddam was not the problem. It was filling a a potential power vacuum that worried him. Zinni was not eager to invade Iraq and thought the idea of arming anti-Saddam insurgents was lunacy, but if the Iraqi’s did the job themselves he had to be ready.”

Cobra II The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq Michael Gordon & General Bernard E. Trainor pg. 26

Gordon and Trainor do an excellent job of showing how the various components of the operation were interconnected. Intelligence assessments regarding weapons of mass destruction, assumptions about how Iraqi forces and civilians would react, and confidence in rapid regime collapse all fed into a strategy that achieved initial military success but left significant gaps in the transition to stability. The authors present these connections in a clear and compelling way, demonstrating how decisions made months or even years before the invasion shaped outcomes on the ground. The detail on the military aspects is pretty deep, and on this point there was a citation of a military saying that bears repeating:

“Amateurs talk about strategy, professionals talk about logistics.”

Cobra II The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq Michael Gordon & General Bernard E. Trainor pg. 96

Rumsfeld’s insistence on a “small footprint” had more than a single flaw. It created some true logistical nightmares for the real war planners. The military war planners well understood the problems with the nonsense being put forward by Rumsfeld and his team. I was a bit disappointed that the famous quote attributed to Tommy Franks in describing the intellectual ability of Doug Feith was not included in the book. Feith, despite that, still draws some heavy, well deserved criticism. A discussion of the administration plan to recruit Iraqi freedom fighters to “aid” the U.S. military turned into a total fiasco, leading to the book’s observation that:

“White House officials and CENTCOM said that the fiasco showed that Feith and his team were better at drafting conservative policy manifestos than instituting programs.”

Cobra II The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq Michael Gordon & General Bernard E. Trainor pg. 107

The book does not shy away from criticism. There is a clear-eyed assessment of the shortcomings in planning for the occupation, including the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the failure to anticipate the insurgency that followed. At the same time, the authors give due credit to the professionalism and adaptability of U.S. military commanders in the field, who executed a complex and fast-moving campaign under significant constraints. The narrative strikes a careful balance, avoiding both polemic and apology, and instead focusing on a detailed reconstruction of events and decisions.

For the student of military history and foreign policy, the cast of characters is both extensive and consequential. Figures such as Tommy Franks, Paul Wolfowitz, and Jay Garner play central roles, along with numerous others in both the military and civilian leadership. Beside the criticism of the Administration Tommy Franks did not really come off well, though I have a fondness for him, likely in part because of his accurate assessment of Feith. Franks was in a difficult position, balancing the military needs as he understood them and the ridiculous amount of interference from Rumsfeld. A military decision to omit some key military units (First Armored and First Cavalry) that Franks wanted was Rumsfeld driven, though later there would be some explanation that Franks had approved.

“‘We had First Armored and First Cavalry in the flow,’Franks said. ‘Don Rumsfeld did in fact make the decision to off-ramp the First Cavalry Division.’ Tom White, the civilian Army secretary, had a less charitable view. ‘Rumsfeld just ground Franks down,’ White said. ‘If you grind away at the military guys long enough, they will finally say, “Screw it, I’ll do the best I can with what I have.’ The nature of Rumsfeld is that you just get tired of arguing with him.’”

Cobra II The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq Michael Gordon & General Bernard E. Trainor pg. 461

The authors provide insight into their personalities, their disagreements, and their influence on the conduct of the war. As with any work of this scope, the authors are ultimately constructing a narrative that will help define how this conflict is remembered, but they do so with a level of rigor and sourcing that lends the book considerable credibility.

The Iraq War remains one of the most controversial foreign policy decisions in modern American history. Cobra II does not attempt to resolve that debate, but it does provide an indispensable foundation for understanding how and why the war unfolded as it did. For historians, policy analysts, and serious readers of contemporary history, this book is essential reading.



View all my reviews

Posted in Books, History | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Methuen’s 300th Birthday

Posted on March 22, 2026 by billmanzi

Last week Methuen celebrated its 300th birthday with a luncheon at the Nevins Library. It was a remarkable event that not only celebrated a great milestone but gave us a fascinating look at the rich history of the City. Thank you to the Methuen 300th Anniversary Committee for the series of events celebrating this history. The event brought together, I believe for the first time, all six Mayors of the modern era. (We greatly miss Mayor Neil Perry, who I am sure would have been delighted by the celebration) Wonderful to see everyone there.

he Six Mayors of the modern era gather at the 300th Birthday celebration for Methuen. Mayor Neil Perry was the seventh.
Mayor Beauregard, former Mayors Jajuga, DiZoglio, Pollard, Manzi and Zanni.
Posted in Methuen | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Michael Collins- The Father of Ireland

Posted on March 18, 2026 by billmanzi

From a letter I sent to the Eagle Tribune many years ago. I tend to put in some edits each year.

Each St. Patrick’s Day, we celebrate Irish identity—its culture, its resilience, and its history. But we don’t always reflect on the difficult decisions that helped shape modern Ireland. Few figures embody that tension more than Michael Collins, whom historian Tim Pat Coogan famously called “the man who made Ireland.”

Collins remains a controversial figure to this day. His decisions have been both praised as visionary and condemned as betrayal. That discomfort still lingers in some Irish republican circles. Yet history invites us to take a broader view. In particular, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement offers a useful lens through which to assess Collins’ legacy—and whether his most contentious decision was, in fact, the right one.

Collins’ reputation was forged during the Irish War of Independence, which began in 1919. He held multiple key roles in the Irish government, including Minister of Finance and Director of Intelligence. In the latter role, Collins built an intelligence network that successfully countered British operations while helping to develop the guerrilla tactics that defined the Irish Republican Army’s campaign. These strategies allowed a smaller, poorly equipped force to fight the world’s most powerful military to a standstill.

Central to that effort was Collins’ creation of “The Squad,” a small, highly effective unit tasked with eliminating British intelligence operatives. Their actions crippled British intelligence capabilities in Ireland while giving the Irish unprecedented insight into British plans. Collins’ contributions were so decisive that Arthur Griffith, founder of Sinn Féin, called him “the man who won the war.”

By July 1921, a truce brought an end to active hostilities, and negotiations began. The Irish position was complicated. The Easter Proclamation of 1916 had declared a fully independent republic governing the entire island. But it was increasingly clear that any agreement with Britain would fall short of that ideal.

In October 1921, Collins was sent to London as part of the Irish delegation, empowered to negotiate and sign a treaty. Notably, Éamon de Valera, the Irish President, chose not to attend, despite having led earlier negotiations. It was a decision that would have lasting and tragic consequences.

The resulting Anglo-Irish Treaty granted Ireland Dominion status within the British Empire, required an oath of allegiance to the Crown, and allowed Britain to retain control of certain ports. However, it also ended British military occupation in 26 counties and established the Irish Free State. Collins understood the compromise he was making, describing the treaty as “a stepping stone” toward full independence.

Critics then—and now—argue that the Treaty conceded too much, particularly in accepting partition and allegiance to the British monarch. Those concerns were not without merit. The Treaty split the Irish leadership, led directly to the Irish Civil War, and ultimately cost Collins his life.

Yet the longer arc of history tells a more complicated story.

Collins’ chief opponent, Éamon de Valera, eventually entered the Dáil in 1927 and took the very oath he had once rejected. Over time, he dismantled that oath and reshaped the Irish state—ironically using the political framework created by the Treaty itself. By 1948, Ireland had formally declared itself a republic. Collins’ belief that the Free State would evolve into fuller independence had been realized.

This brings us to the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. Like the Treaty of 1921, it required difficult compromises. It accepted that Northern Ireland would remain part of the United Kingdom unless a majority voted otherwise, and it amended the Irish constitution to remove its territorial claim to the North. These were not small concessions.

But the Agreement also brought an end to decades of violence and created a framework for peace that endures today.

The parallel is striking. In both 1921 and 1998, Irish leaders faced the same fundamental choice: hold fast to an ideal, or accept an imperfect settlement that could lead to something better. Collins chose the latter—and history suggests that choice was not only pragmatic, but necessary.

The evolution of the Irish Free State into a fully independent republic, along with the success of the Good Friday Agreement, underscores the foresight of Collins’ position. He recognized earlier than most that progress would come not in a single leap, but in stages.

Collins did not deliver the Ireland many had envisioned in 1921. But he made possible the Ireland that exists today—sovereign, stable, and at peace.

That may be the truest measure of leadership, and the most fitting legacy to remember each St. Patrick’s Day.

Posted in Ireland | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment