kind of career. Their relationships withnmen are unsatisfactory, primarily becausenmen are essentially cruel or reallyncan’t tell women apart and considernthem mere adjuncts to themselves andnkeepers of their houses. Their attractionnto men is frankly acknowledged as lust.nChildren and family life, aside fromnhusband-wife conflicts, are left out ofnconsideration. Southerners are bigotednsubscribers to the “Protestant-Puritannmyths.” The moral tone, such as it is, isnone of stock liberal permissiveness. Thenconflict in the story is resolved (if “conflict”nand “resolved” are not overstatingnit) by the woman deciding not to marrynor not to continue an affair but insteadnturning to self-reliant independence.n”The Break-In” is a representative example.nCynthia, who works as a readernfor a publisher, “has never married, justnhad lots of affairs.” After “a rather sillynaffair with her employer, an erratic andnon the whole irresponsible young man,”nshe is now planning to marry Roger, whonhas been married and divorced threentimes. Roger has a mountain house nearnLake Tahoe, where they have spentnseveral weekends. When word comesnthat the house has been vandalized, theyndrive from San Francisco to survey thendamage. The sheriff, “red-faced, with anbeer swollen stomach,” thinks it was hippiesnthat broke in; “he has never forgottennnor forgiven hippies.” (Note thencomplexity of characterization Adamsndisplays.) When he leaves, the couplenlook at each other and sigh at such intolerantnstupidity. Later, it occurs to Rogernthat the break-in could have been committednby a group of Mexicans he hadnevicted from his property when they werenhaving a noisy picnic. This suggestion,nwhich she takes as a racial slur, upsetsnCynthia and lowers Roger in her estimation.nShe puts it together with her growingnfeeling that he is too concerned withnthe house and decides she can’t marrynhim. He really doesn’t know who she is,nshe thinks; women are all alike to him.nAs she prepares to walk out on him andntake a train back to San Francisco, shendiscovers a notebook from St. Christo­npher’s School, the “expensive, ultraconservativenschool” Roger had attended 20nyears ago. But this notebook is new, andnshe infers that it was “rich kids” fromnthat school who had done the damage.nWith a sack of manuscripts iii her hand,nshe heads “toward the train and anbeautiful trip, going home.” One neednnot be particularly alert in order to getnthe messages.nX hough these books are products ofncontrasting theories of fiction, theirnmoral implications are not entirelyndissimilar, and both call into questionnthe notion of universally agreed uponnmeanings of such fundamental conceptsnas love, normality, and morality. One ofnAdams’s characters defines love as “thenmost overwhelming, most intense andnLessons UnlearnednHarry G. Summers, Jr.: On Strategy: AnCritical Analysis of the Vietnam War;nPresidio Press; Ignacio, CA.nby William R. HawkinsnJn Strategy is not a history of thenVietnam War, nor is it a description ofnbattles or even a dissertation on tactics. Itnis an attempt to fit the policies pursuednduring Vietnam into a strategicnframework at the highest level in order tonlearn where the errors were made. In anfield where the vast bulk of the writing—non all sides—has been polemical rathernthan analytical, Summers’s well-researchednbook is welcome.nThe principal criticism which Summersnmakes is that the U.S. concentratednon the wrong enemy. “Instead of focusingnour attention on the external enemy.nNorth Vietnam—the source of the war—nwe turned our attention to the symptomn—the guerrilla war in the South—andnMr. Hawkins is assistant professor ofneconomics at Radford University innVirginia.nnninexhaustible sensuality.” Anotherndefines normality as three marriages,nthree children, and three abortions. “Inhaven’t counted lovers,” she says, but “itncomes to a normal life, for a woman ofnmy age.” Obviously there is irony here,nbut as a matter of fact, these are accuratendefinitions of love and normality as theynare manifest in To See You Again. InnVirginie love and normality are evennmore problematic, but the dust jacket ofnVirginie lauds Hawkes’s “moral imagination.n” Unable to make any sense ofnthat, one can conclude only that thenwriters of dust-jacket copy have a rathernperverse concept of “moral.” Readers ofnthese books would be well advised tonponder exactly what meanings lie behindnfamiliar concepts easily taken forngranted. Dnlimited our attacks on the North to airnand sea actions only.” As an infantry officer.nSummers realizes that wars arenultimately won or lost on the ground, sonhe dismisses the bombing campaign overnthe North and, while he favored a morenaggressive campaign against sanctuariesnand supply routes in Cambodia andnLaos, he goes well beyond these familiarnthemes. His real target is the doctrine ofncounterinsurgency, which he blames onnthe civilian defense intellectuals whonoverrode the experience of the activenmilitary. Counterinsurgency had thensame paralyzing effect on Army thinkingnas the massive-retaliation doctrine in then1950’s did. Both doctrines advance thenbelief that military history has no lessonsnto be applied to current events—modernnconditions are new and unique. Acceptancenof this reduced the perceived valuenof military advice and opened the way fornthe “best and the brightest” of civiliannadvisers. When Army Chief of StaffnGeorge H. Decker disputed this pointnwith John F. Kennedy, he was replacednin his position by the more pragmaticnEarle Wheeler. Vietnam-era PresidentsnJanuary 198Sn