Alexander brings one of the oldest subjects of military history up to date usefully if not always outstandingly, for he tries to have his cake and eat it, too, by claiming that we are living in a wholly new era of warfare (i.e., war by terror) and that Alexander the Great and Napoleon can teach us profound and universal lessons. Alexander's strongest influence appears to be Sun Tzu, and some familiarity with that martial sage, whose Art of War seems to be translated anew every third year, aids in understanding and profiting from this book. Alexander's clear writing, thorough research across three millennia of world military history, and incorporation of recent events in the Balkans and Afghanistan when evaluating prospects and possibilities all strongly recommend the book. Still, for a serious general audience, it could be better, and it may be if it is appropriately updated to reflect the next several phases of the war on terrorism.

Alexander ( How Hitler Could Have Won World War II , 2000, etc.) illuminates each of his 13 "rules" by using historical conflicts where conformity to one of the rules carried the day. Of concern to readers is how the rules might apply today in combating terrorists. One could simplify these rules by pointing out that the military is taught to exploit above all the element of surprise coupled with the ever-popular concept of divide-and-conquer. In parallel thought, Alexander lists, among others, holding one place, striking another while employing a superior weapon. He extensively discusses warfare from almost everywhere, including the final ousting of the British from New York by George Washington, Napoleon's various exploits, Civil War battles, and others in both world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. All are well reported. Lastly, he takes up the tragedy of September 11. Today, war is no longer conducted en masse, since it is far too dangerous. Rather, increasing attention must be given to preventing attacks by small groups of suicide-bent individuals using novel means of destruction like commandeered commercial aircraft striking at weakness. For warriors as well as the general public.

This is a book whose argument would be more effective had the author not apparently refocused his manuscript after September 11. Alexander, a journalist and writer of general audience works on military subjects, challenges the relevance and effectiveness of the "Western way of war" as articulated by, among others, Victor Davis Hanson and John Keegan. That model emphasizes intense, direct conflict focused on decisive battles whose outcomes are determined by relative loss rates. Alexander's "13 rules," in contrast, emphasize indirection: striking at weak spots, employing deception, paralyzing systems as opposed to killing men. Though the research bases of Alexander's case studies are uniformly thin, he does not seriously abuse his evidence. Most of the battles he cites in demonstration of a particular "rule" more or less support the argument. Cannae, for example, is an appropriate example of a battle of encirclement. Yet Alexander (<EMPHASIS TYPE=""ITALIC"">How Hitler Could Have Won World War II) also seeks to connect his "rules of war" directly to the contemporary "war on terror." In this case, the drastic asymmetries between the adversaries make the relationships to historic battles fought by more similar forces difficult to establish. Alexander usually winds up postulating a connection rather than demonstrating it. The link, for example, between operational-level "cauldron battles" like those fought in Russia in 1941, and the tactics employed by the U.S. in Afghanistan against the Taliban, is at best tenuous, if not entirely inferential. Alexander's case should not be dismissed, but is best approached with intellectual caution. As the U.S. prepares for war, look for interest in this title to be high.<EMPHASIS TYPE=""ITALIC""> (On sale Oct. 29)