The Art of Intelligence - Crumpton

With a title as bold as “The Art of Intelligence” Henry Crumpton is trifling with the orthodoxy of warfare by riffing on Sun Tzu’s  timeless classic, “The Art of War”.   To say he is the best theorist to describe the art of intelligence to an intelligence expert, let alone a student of intelligence, or even a lay person, would be to cast shade on the heretofore already deeply understood notion in statecraft, that in war, beyond the Clausewitzian doctrine that demands logistics as the foundation for all we do,  he has given us an understanding that both the fog of war (also Clausewitz), as well as what Sun Tzu has told us, “to know our enemy” brings intelligence to the fore of everything that happens in warfare.  The best news about this book is that Crumpton isn’t just theorizing about intelligence.  He was an operator with a full career doing the things that intelligence persons do.  He is an authority on what he writes.  As always, however, speaking about actual intelligence, and intelligence operations, collection, and reporting, remains a sticky subject because of the need to protect everything about it.  The art itself, often described as tradecraft, is a closely guarded secret.  The sources and methods required to obtain intelligence, as well as the intelligence itself, often called by various names based on how it was collected, IMINT, SIGINT, HUMINT, MASINT etc. is highly classified.  Most of the time declassification cannot occur until 75 years into the future.  That perhaps is an arbitrary number of years, nevertheless, that is the length of time our Country has deemed the sensitivity of classified information must remain in the dark.  That means, for those able to quickly do math in their head, things classified in 1948 should soon be reaching the light of day.  Things have changed significantly in the past 75 years, so those hoping to learn about modern day intelligence, should not be looking for secrets in this book.  Rather, they should read this book with an eye towards what intelligence means in the general sense.  Basically, stealing secrets from our adversaries.  Wishing to reveal that which our adversaries do not wish to reveal about their preparations for war, and more importantly, revealing to us their intentions, specifically the intentions, as George Orwell has been attributed as saying, of those who wish to do us harm.

With that said up front, Crumpton has succeeded in giving us a pertinent view into the machine that produces intelligence.  Some may disagree.  Others will bemoan the very notion that spying is somehow a noble endeavor, believing that no one should keep secrets from anyone.  We should live in an open society and all activities related to intelligence are so nefarious as to strike at the core of what should not be allowed to exist in a free world.  That naivete will not be addressed today.  A free country will not remain free if it doesn't prepare for, and seek out, the information about threats, both foreign and domestic, that strive to remove that freedom from us. Topically, we failed to heed the known threats coming from Vladimr Putin, and the hard fought freedoms of the people of Ukraine and now in a battle for their lives.  It has been the nature of war since the inception of human society that aggressors exist.  We must always prepare.

Intelligence is hard work.  It doesn’t come for free.  It can’t be passive.  It must be active.  Always looking and always listening.  Attempting to figure out in the complex machine of human endeavor what is happening and why.  It starts with the human eyeball and is as simple as the effective sound bite attempting to combat terrorism, “if you see something, say something”.  That is, in the simplest of terms, what intelligence is all about.  Discovering something and reporting on it. It’s not glamorous. It requires both vigilance and endurance.  We’ve tried to automate the tedium of discovery with technology.   Crumpton reminds us that the best intelligence comes from human’s in the know that reveal what is really going on.  And that requires human to human relations. Our intelligence operatives are not the spies as we might believe. The spies are the human’s in other countries who must be recruited by our operatives and turned into willing sources of information about their people, their organizations, and their countries.  The art of intelligence is, at its core, the way in which we must turn those in other countries against themselves, in essence to become traitors to their own flag.  It is not an easy business.  That is what Crumpton has made his career and for which every American should be grateful.  That is what Crumpton has written down for us…as much as he could…and he succeeds in giving us a recipe for what it takes.

In the first half of his book he describes this art from the training of operatives, the recruiting of spies, how collecting is done and then reported.  In the second half of his book he demonstrates in the real world, though the scenario we are well too familiar with, the intelligence failing to detect the threat from Al Qaeda and the subsequent attacks on 9/11.  He follows through with the intelligence necessary to conduct the war in Afghanistan, the pursuit of Al Qaeda and in the epilogue, the hunt for Osama bin Laden and his subsequent death.

He also devotes a chapter to the art of diplomacy with other countries requiring the participation and close alliance with the State Department.  In a particularly insightful chapter he takes on the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and explains the difference between the two organizations.  He explains how they are similar and should cooperate more openly, but more importantly he describes how they are dissimilar, and must be for a reason, but that which has led continuously to a misunderstanding of how the two organizations can work in concert can be at odds with one another.  Nevertheless both organizations are maligned for the work they do in favor of freedom by Bozos  who can’t fathom how  critical both organizations are to the existence of the freedoms they enjoy. Those Bozo’s should read this book.

I am going to give Crumpton Four-Stars for this book.  Yes he is bold with the title yet a book of this sort simply doesn’t exist.  With a little back-ground on the subject it is easier for many to fill in the holes where we have knowledge.  It helps to know a few things and therefore acknowledge that Crumpton is right on the money.  For those who do not, whereas I don’t agree with their criticisms, I hope they find other ways to build their knowledge to understand that Crumpton has deep experience in the things for which he speaks.  And it is an art, not a science.  We are better for these practitioners of this crucial art and can hinge our way of life on the existence of these fine Americans.     

The Abolition of Man - Lewis

In Wildness is the Preservation of the World...

One cannot argue that C.S. Lewis deserves all of the accolades he has received about being one of the great intellectual forces of the 20th Century and certainly many of the criticisms as well.  To be a well loved intellectual force in the 20th Century one must also generate an equal and opposite force of intellectual hatred.  One need only read through the notes of Ayn Rand in the margins of her copy of “The Abolition of Man” to see her disdain for him and his thoughts.

Discounting the debate for now and discarding the veracity of Lewis’s universal set of guiding principles, the Tao, or the way, Lewis sets out to prove it’s objective truth, while acknowledging the proof itself can only be observed, not tested.  In the “Abolition of Man” Lewis presents three lectures to make his case.  His case is simply that the erosion of objective truth, by the subtle replacement of truth over time with the subjective feeling of man’s base desires, if left unchecked, will lead to our downfall and ultimately the demise of our species.

In Chapter 1, “Men Without Chests”, Lewis shows examples of the how the subtle replacement of objectivity with subjectivity will lead to men of hollow character.

In Chapter 2, “The Way”, Lewis introduces what he believes to be the universal set of truth that has distinguished men from anything else.  And those truths are not natural they are opposite to what we would find in nature if our selfish desires emerged.

In Chapter 3, “The Abolition of Man”, Lewis ties it all together, specifically attacking threats to the Tao, such as science,  which argues that knowledge of our true self, which in the absence of the Tao, would be no different from the instinct of animals and leads to the elimination of that which  makes us men.  

Clearly, what makes us men, and what Lewis does not argue directly, and I’m not sure why, is our soul.  Lewis is arguing the “The Abolition of Man” is the abolition of our soul.  The human species would persist, but akin to animals, versus our unique human-ness, that which makes us human.  Most attacks against Lewis thus come in the form that the soul itself is subjective simply because no one can prove it’s existence, therefore Lewis’s entire argument is a contradiction.  The existence of a universal Tao, can only be observed, it cannot be proven.  This is also subjective.  The debate becomes circular and ad infinitum as well as ad nauseam.  (I throw a little Latin because one benefit of reading C.S.Lewis is he always throws in a lot of Latin -  my favorite of his use of Latin comes early in this book, “pons asinorum”,  or a bridge of asses)

There is a poetic beauty in C.S. Lewis’s writing and everyone should read this book...the contradiction is what makes it fascinating.   Nothing is more poetic than in the third chapter where he builds toward his abolition crescendo taking us through a description of how man’s victories over nature (through science and technology) will ultimately be our downfall.  Of course he is speaking of the downfall of our soul.  The ironic beauty of this passage is he is describing evolution...more eloquently than any scientist could have at the time...I truly wonder if he understood this while he was writing it.   It is through evolution that, although we may lose our souls in the process, we will be rescued as a species.  In wildness is the preservation of the world (Thoreau).  It would be neat to see C.S. Lewis and H.D. Thoreau debate the “Abolition of Man”.

In Wildness is the Preservation of the World

One cannot argue that C.S. Lewis deserves all of the accolades he has received about being one of the great intellectual forces of the 20th Century and certainly many of the criticisms as well.  To be a well loved intellectual force in the 20th Century one must also generate an equal and opposite force of intellectual hatred.  One need only read through the notes of Ayn Rand in the margins of her copy of “The Abolition of Man” to see her disdain for him and his thoughts.

Discounting the debate for now and discarding the veracity of Lewis’s universal set of guiding principles, the Tao, or the way, Lewis sets out to prove it’s objective truth, while acknowledging the proof itself can only be observed, not tested.  In the “Abolition of Man” Lewis presents three lectures to make his case.  His case is simply that the erosion of objective truth, by the subtle replacement of truth over time with the subjective feeling of man’s base desires, if left unchecked, will lead to our downfall and ultimately the demise of our species.

In Chapter 1, “Men Without Chests”, Lewis shows examples of the how the subtle replacement of objectivity with subjectivity will lead to men of hollow character.

In Chapter 2, “The Way”, Lewis introduces what he believes to be the universal set of truth that has distinguished men from anything else.  And those truths are not natural they are opposite to what we would find in nature if our selfish desires emerged.

In Chapter 3, “The Abolition of Man”, Lewis ties it all together, specifically attacking threats to the Tao, such as science,  which argues that knowledge of our true self, which in the absence of the Tao, would be no different from the instinct of animals and leads to the elimination of that which  makes us men.  

Clearly, what makes us men, and what Lewis does not argue directly, and I’m not sure why, is our soul.  Lewis is arguing the “The Abolition of Man” is the abolition of our soul.  The human species would persist, but akin to animals, versus our unique human-ness, that which makes us human.  Most attacks against Lewis thus come in the form that the soul itself is subjective simply because no one can prove it’s existence, therefore Lewis’s entire argument is a contradiction.  The existence of a universal Tao, can only be observed, it cannot be proven.  This is also subjective.  The debate becomes circular and ad infinitum as well as ad nauseam.  (I throw a little Latin because one benefit of reading C.S.Lewis is he always throws in a lot of Latin -  my favorite of his use of Latin comes early in this book, “pons asinorum”,  or a bridge of asses)

There is a poetic beauty in C.S. Lewis’s writing and everyone should read this book...the contradiction is what makes it fascinating.   Nothing is more poetic than in the third chapter where he builds toward his abolition crescendo taking us through a description of how man’s victories over nature (through science and technology) will ultimately be our downfall.  Of course he is speaking of the downfall of our soul.  The ironic beauty of this passage is he is describing evolution...more eloquently than any scientist could have at the time...I truly wonder if he understood this while he was writing it.   It is through evolution that, although we may lose our souls in the process, we will be rescued as a species.  In wildness is the preservation of the world (Thoreau).  It would be neat to see C.S. Lewis and H.D. Thoreau debate the “Abolition of Man”. 

 

Talking to Strangers - Gladwell

How do you link terrorism, Adolf Hitler, sexual predation, murder, ponzi schemes, and the Black Lives Matter movement under one cover?  Ask Malcolm Gladwell to write a book….  And he has.  His latest is called “Talking to Strangers” and he has created yet another phrase for our culture and times, Much like he has with “The Tipping Point” and “Blink”.  The phrase, “Talking to Strangers'” will forever mean, don’t forget, when you are out there in the world interacting with people, you don’t really know what is in the mind of the person you’ve never met standing in line in at the checkout counter, even though you’ve seen them many times.  This is not to infer something nefarious is going on. It is to explain that although it is our human nature to give fellow humans the benefit of the doubt, and to trust them, we never know  how a person’s personality and what they are thinking, presents itself outwardly in a manner for us to infer anything about them.  The phrase, you can’t judge a book by it’s cover, was never meant to be about books. Thus, Gladwell has usurped the idea, and giving it a new name.  Talking to Strangers is how Gladwell has recast the old line but given us a much deeper understanding of how? And why? It’s a thing.  This is not the simple classic admonishment that has become an internet meme or YouTube video where we are reminded not to get angry in the checkout line because the person in front of us might have experienced a death in the family, or diagnosis with the “C” word.   Rather, Gladwell presents the evidence from all these unrelated examples, that even with our very best intentions to read people correctly,  we always get it wrong…

Ironically, I write this review as the novel Corona virus, Covid-19, has begun amping up it’s chilling effect on the population here in the United States. Strangely, three things occur to me.  One, the “C” word, now apparently stands for “COVID-19”.  Two, just like not being able to judge a book by it’s cover, we really don’t know who is the carrier of the virus.  And three, social distancing tells us to keep six feet away from everyone, including in the supermarket checkout line.  Perhaps we will have to wait a few months before we get back to talking to strangers in line at the grocery store. But I digress...

As always, Gladwell did a lot of research to come up with this book. Most of the stories he relates to us are familiar topics in the news and the ones he connects with his ideas about not judging a book by its cover are well known to us.  How Chamberlain totally misread Hitler during his meeting with him prior to WWII, How Bernie Madolf with his ponzi scheme, pulled the wool over the eyes of Wall Street.  How Gerry Sandusky could have had a charity to help young boys and abuse them at the same time, under the watchful eyes of the most famous football coach in the world? How was a doctor able to sexually  abuse so many women on the US Gymnastics Team, sometimes with their parents in the same room?  And on and on...

The answer, in a nutshell, is that we are a trusting race of humans.  We evolved to trust because we have to live by trust and  trust our other fellow humans to live by us and trust us as well.  Maybe it’s to live in society together, but we’ve been evolving long before societies, so it must be something deeper.  But with regard to society, here is my own analogy from something I like to do, drive cars. In order for the rules of the road (society) to work, and not have mass chaos on our highways, we trust other drivers to follow the rules.  It’s funny that we can be so trusting  but yet we yell and scream at the a-hole who will not yield, or the maniac who passes us on the right.  Afterall, anyone going slower than us is an a-holet and anyone going faster than us is a maniac.  The dichotomy of thought is a classic human inconsistency.  We trust those a-holes and maniacs with our lives, and to stay in their lane,  as we wind down a two lane back road with a painted line in between us and a closing velocity of 140 miles per hour.  Since we are so trusting, perhaps we should be willing to believe the guy with the concealed carry permit is as reliable as his cousin on the highway.  This is a very pro-gun arguement, and many of my friends would agree.  They are to be trusted.  But Gladwell’s argument, that we can’t judge a book by it’s cover, suggests we shouldn’t, or can’t always trust the smile on their face.  Yet the list of reasons to trust people in society goes on and on... otherwise we would all live in a cabin in the woods and write manifestos (I’m referring to unabomber Ted Kosinski not HDT).  

Here are the use cases Gladwell writes about:

Adolf Hitler and Nevel Chamberlain.  Chamberlain traveled to Germany multiple times  to meet with Hitler so he could report back to the world that he trusted Hitler because he told him his objectives were not world domination as they shook hands and he looked into his eyes. History was not kind to Chamberlain given how badly he misread der Fuehrer's face, despite the fact that he had written an entire book on the subject.  Did anyone actually read, “Mein Kampf”?

Amanda Knox and the Italian policia:  The Italian authorities and most of the world did not believe a  girl buying red underware the day after her roomate’s brutal murder could have been anything but the perputrator of a  violent sexual esxapade gone bad.  When in fact, Knox is so ridiculously innocent, as to resemble any one of our shy, awkward daughters.  The missing detail, was of course, the fact that she was locked out of her apartment and literally had no underwear. She was seen by the Italian press, buying underwear the next day.  Who would do that after murdering their roommate? How about someone who didn’t murder their roomate. And the scandalous innuendo went viral from there....

Bernie Madoff fleeces all of  Wall Street given he had absolutely nothing to show for any investment he ever made?  How is that possible?  One man saw through the impossibility of it all...but no one would listen to him.  Madoff was too important of a figure.

In the Gerry Sandusky case, for decades, many looked away from the smoke, when there was not only smoke, but a fire.  Not just a campfire, but a three alarm conflagration and a towering inferno of abuse.  

Gladwell’s point, in all these cases, has been those closest to the issues, those who could have seen the signs and understood what was really going on, have been unable to effectively communicate because they have been talking to strangers, literally.  Like a pig looking at a wristwatch.  No matter how much talking you do, if you haven’t a clue as to the premise, the context, and the language being spoken, you will miss the mark.  

I’m reminded of my own “Talking to Strangers” experience from when I was in the Air Force many moons ago.  At that time the Wing Commander put me in charge of  an explosive safety mishap investigation.  The mishap involved the inadvertent firing of an explosive squib.  The squib is the first in a series  of explosive events that will  lead to the firing of the rockets in the ejection of a seat on the B-52H bomber.  It seems a maintenance technician pulled the ejection handle while on a Red Ball, an emergency maintenance response to an aircraft just before take off.  The maintainers blamed the mishap on the aircrew and the aircrew blamed it on the maintainers. Clearly, the maintainer pulled the handle, he was at fault. But if we let it go there, we would not understand what Gladwell is talking about.   After careful investigation I uncovered the following facts.  The aircrew refused to take the aircraft because the ejection seat handle appeared loose and it would wobble from side to side. Per the technical order (T.O.) the handle should not wobble. The maintainer insisted that the aircraft was safe for a one-time-flight and that the ejection handle, despite the slight wobble, would function if it became necessary to eject. Back and forth the maintainer and the aircrew went debating whether or not the seat would work.  The aircrew wanted to reject the sortie and the maintainers wanted them to fly the jet.  During the investigation, as I looked at the handle, and the disassembled unit, on the maintenance bench, there was no doubt the handle would work.  There was also no doubt there was a wobble. But during the incident the debate went on and on until the point that the maintainer was so frustrated with the aircrew, and their inability to trust his judgement, that  he said, “Look, it works!”, and he pulled the ejection handle.  The fact that the handle would work is so intuitively obvious to the most casually observing flatworm, it's so easy to see how the frustration would build.  This wasn’t a question of some arcane and mysterious black box, and there are many of those, for which the aircrew has to put their faith (and life)  in the hands of the  maintainers...this happens everyday. This is a very basic mechanical operation...the handle moves up and down...it’s an on or off proposition.  This came down to attitude, respect, and the ability to communicate, whilst engines running, and trying to move fast, in the heat of an aircraft launch.     Fortunately, the squib only sets off the first event in the chain of explosive event’s leading to the seat being rocketed out of the top of the aircraft. The seat has final safety pins that are only removed at the very end of the runway just prior to takeoff roll. Had those pins also been removed,  undoubtedly, both the maintainer and aircrew member would have been killed.  They would not have just been just injured.  They would have both been ejected violently through the roof of the B-52, traveling up on a rocket sled several hundred feet into the air, to be smashed by the seat leaving the aircraft, and then smashed by their subsequent fall to the ground…It would have been ghastly.

But it was the frustration of the back and forth, the lack of trust on both sides, the inability to see what the other one was saying, their inability to communicate, that neither party could be completely absolved, or completely blamed.  Gladwell would say, they were not talking to one another, despite all the training, they were effectively talking to strangers. Mishaps happen this way…in this case, the Chief of Flying Safety, a B-52 pilot himself, believed my investigation and called in every aircrew member from the wing to describe what caused this lack of trust and what we should do to enhance respect and grow closer as a flying wing.   We could not have tolerated the more ghastly mishap had it occurred.  On the flightline, it’s one family...yet  there is always a tension between ops and maintenance, I could go on and on but I will not. Communication and understanding is key,  trust is life or death.

Stalling for Time - Neosner

 

When Timothy McVeigh went mad and bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building  in Oklahoma City, and became the most notorious domestic terrorist in our Nation’s history, he had a motive.  His act was in retaliation for what he believed to be the oppression of freemen at the two botched incursions by the Federal government during the standoff at Ruby Ridge and siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco Texas. McVeigh targeted the federal agents of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and two other federal agencies housed within that building when he committed his crime. Ironically, as vile a crime against America as this was, few American’s would argue that those Government standoffs were not botched and indeed good examples of Federal law enforcement gone bad.  Giving no justification for such horrific crimes against fellow American’s, for which McVeigh forfeited his life appropriately through his Federal criminal prosecution and subsequent execution, there can be no better understanding of what actually happened at Ruby Ridge, and at Waco, then through the eyes of an FBI agent who was involved in both standoffs.  In his book, “Stalling for Time, My Life as an FBI Hostage Negotiator”, written after his retirement from the FBI, Gary Noesner, gives us a crystal clear portrait of the FBI position on the use of both tactical response and negotiations during a crisis standoff.  The indictment of the FBI’s position on the use of force, outweighing, the use of alternative peaceful negotiations is abundantly clear.  Yet when properly applied, the negotiation tactics have proven over and over again, that life can be spared, and violence reduced.   At the top of the heap, perhaps an Oxymoron’s in its use (my words, not Neosner’s) is the very phrase, “FBI Negotiator”.  Chief among the stated policies of the US Government, is simply, that “We do not negotiate with terrorists”.  Why then have a negotiator in the first place?  The answer?  Because we actually do negotiate and must negotiate if we are to save lives, not just the lives of hostages and innocents caught up in the chaos but also those of law enforcement who must engage in the tactical actions if force is used. The US Stated policy isn’t actually a policy.  It’s merely a sound bite taken from a brazen speech, post 9/11.  And a terrible impediment to much ground that was gained in the aftermath of 90’s. Of course we negotiate with bad guys.  Everything is a negotiation.  Even in the grimmest of situations, even when all hope is lost, final words, attitudes, and information derived from speaking with, and barging for, concessions, can lead to a tactical edge if and when the shooting starts.  But the biggest gain, of all negotiations, is time.  Whether that time leads to a peaceful settlement or not, stalling for time is everybody's friend and it should be job one.  The patience to stall for time, in the modest of a crisis, however, is perhaps the hardest thing to do.  The negotiator, thus, finds themselves, not only negotiating with the perpetrators, but also with the tactical force, with an  itchy trigger finger, chomping at the bit to break down the door.

Knowing this, why then, did things go so poorly at Ruby Ridge and Waco?  Noesner grapples with this question throughout his book.  Himself, suggesting and agreeing to the use of deadly force against an estranged husband who had taken both his wife and child hostage, for which he knew, as an experienced negotiator, that hope was gone...and in fact would set the husband up for a sniper’s bullet through his final negotiated words… Noesner carries that burden with him though he knows  he saved the life of an ever grateful wife and her child that day.  

As it turns out, and the reason I read this book, is because it was one of the references for the NetFlix series, WACO, about David Koresh and the tragedy that befell his compound after a long and frustrating siege.  Having all of us who can remember, lived through the reporting on the siege, I wanted to understand how truthful the series was in reenacting the standoff.  I rate the show as highly accurate, given other material I have read, and this book.  It should be noted that this standoff was indeed a tragedy given the loss of innocent life.  All blame can be placed on David Koresh, and of course, it is not in dispute that the branch Davidians set the final conflagration that took most of the lives of all inside the compound, but what is also clear, there was no compelling reason to breach the compound.  And the reasons given for final approval, that came from the top, were heavenly biased and misleading.  Truth was not spoken to power on that day.in Washington.

But this book is not just about Waco.  Noesner provides incite into a number of high profile standoffs, not just in the United States, but around the world, in which he was involved.  From domestic incidents, to prison riots, to the hijacking of aircraft by Muslin extremists, including the bombing of the 747 that broke up over Lockerbie Scotland, random  kidnappings for ransom, and finally, his involvement in capture of the Washington Sniper.  In which case,  believe it or not, negotiations were being attempted through the use of notes left behind by the snipers (John Mohamed and Lee Boy Malvo) and controlled use of the media to provide indications back to them.  True to form, the powers that be, choosing not to take some of Noesner’s hard learned advice.

This is a short but powerful read..  Noesner is firm, credible, and clear. Perhaps based on his decades of experience in negotiations, where clarity with very little ambiguity is paramount.  This book is a must read if anyone questions the tactical response of any use of what may be observed as an excessive use of force.  With so many shows on TV depicting these crucial scenes where ego, competence, fear, and adrenaline come together...it’s nice to see ground truth.  Law enforcement activity is most successfully executed when boredom takes precedence over action.  Negotiations, much like stakeouts, are long periods of time being away from home, uncomfortable, while drinking a lot of coffee and eating cheeseburgers..  Stalling for time saves lives.  FIve stars for this must read a book on a critical aspect of law enforcement.

Sounder - Armstrong

 

My daughter was assigned “Sounder” as one of her summer readings for her English class this coming year.  I read the book with her because I thought this would be a great opportunity to open a conversation and as a chance to reread the classics if she doesn’t apply a similar value to the opportunity...which will most likely be the case.

Therefore, undeterred, I began reading.  William Armstrong wrote Sounder based on stories he heard growing up in the south.  Seemingly recording an oral tradition of sorts, the way these stories were handed down from generation to generation, along with the many Biblical stories that strengthened Christian values within the African-American Culture.  No doubt there was more than one black family with a hunting dog that faced similar oppression during the 106 years since emancipation and this book's publication in 1969.  As it turns out, I was living in Alabama in 1969,  I was five.  I know I read Sounder at some point...although I can’t remember when the exposure first came.  But I remembered that Sounder was  the name of a great hunting dog owned by a poor black family...and who doesn’t love a story about dogs...even if it  might  end sadly.  The story of the dog, however,  unlike other dog stories, is  nowhere near the plotline.  

This story is about the boy and his journey to literacy and ultimately manhood...it is told completely through the boy’s perspective.  Sounder, isn’t even his dog.  Sounder is his father’s hunting dog.  Whereas the boy cares deeply for Sounder, he cares even more for his father.   It is the boys journey to discover his father’s fate, that propels him forward.  The responsibility he showed towards his family and his literacy are strong and important lessons which should be the overriding themes.

However, important as it is for young men to recognize the power of literacy and how important it is for the rest of us to understand the injustices of racial prejudice, there are several lessons in Sounder that perhaps we shouldn’t be conveying to young men of any ethnicity.  First,  that fathers are absent because they’re were jailed, rightly or wrongly, for trying to feed their family.  And second, that it’s OK to hate your oppressor, to the point where you visualize their death in graphic detail, as long as you don’t act on it.

Both messages are extremely confusing, particularly for young readers.  Even more so given the fact that Armstrong ties the story closely with Biblical passages conveyed through the boy’s mom...most from the Old Testament First, even if a father is removed from his family unjustly, as might have been the case on countless occasions, that should never be considered normal and allowed to continue despite the comfort humming “The Lonesome Road” might bring to his mother.   And second, the seeds of hatred are sowed both ways.  The Christian message would be one of forgiveness not one of revenge, even if only in one’s mind.  “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do,” would be more consistent  with the storyline, rather than, “...The bull-necked man would sag to his knees...and crumple into a heap on the floor...and blood would ooze out of his mouth and nose.”  As gratifying and just  as it would be to see this particular man die in this particular way, in this particular case it is a very confusing theme and detracts from the overall purpose of this story.  Start with five stars because Sounder is, and will remain an important book.  Subtract one star for each major  inconsistency that cause