Junger's thesis, in brief, is that the real trauma of warfare doesn't occur in combat but in returning home to find you don't belong. It is then, you realize that the hardships were actually preferable to an alienated peace. His point is well taken (and well written) but the solution would appear to be a society of severity. I am reminded of the "clear and severe" motto of Wayward Pines, a sci-fi future in which the death sentence was a common punishment.

Junger notices that the military provides a clarity and an intimacy that we have lost. He understands this as tribalism and finds a similar culture in the American Indian tribes of the 19th century. The "proof" is that the civilized often went native but the reverse never occurred. Tribal life offers something we need and can no longer find in 21st century America.

I agree with his diagnosis and with many of his arguments but reject his conclusion. Indeed "we" need uniting (scare quotes indicating there is no "we" any more) but tribes do not scale well. It's hard to unite around principles when our society can't even agree as to what the facts are. It is, in certain circles, easy to claim the intellectual high ground for science and education, but in a way, their assertions have recent been shown to be those of arrogance by how badly the 2016 electoral polls turned out to be wrong. Pollsters were claiming scientific validity but their predictions didn't happen. Instead, the authority of institutional class-ism, the invisible cousin of institutional racism, was saying "believe us--we're the smart ones here."

Junger makes arguments which use the word "evolution" and he appeals to the DSM (psychiatric diagnostic and statistical manual) but his critique of Western culture suffers from its own culture-boundedness. He asserts his point of view, much of which I share, but doesn't admit he is asserting his values.

Among those values are his understanding of gender roles. This is primarily a book about men. I don't know if he would identify as a gender existentialist because he is smart enough to avoid the issue.

I enjoyed reading this book--his anecdotes made it easy to suspend my disbelief. I especially liked his argument that people feel safer sleeping among their troop in combat than alone in an isolated house in peacetime.

I offer no solution for the ills he points out, in part because I think they are just the tip of the iceberg, but we need to start discussing it from some point of view. Why not start with his?