Before I read the book, my eyes see a picture of a grenade, on the top right hand corner of it appears to be a point eye range, and beneath both these images is the title “Guerrilla Warfare, and Introduction”. Already I am questioning myself whether this book is actually going to teach me what it means to be in a war and how to go about it. Like, even the fact that someone could write a book about it makes it seem not only revolutionary in our standards, but also part of the Cuban revolution where the main goal was to recruit people, join masses, and fight against the oppressors. And yet, as I read this book my doubts turn into reality and this book goes into great length, very much in detail, and one could tell, with lots of time, dedication, careful choice of words, and cause. I will say somethings that grabbed my attention while trying to understand and accept how someone could really have gone so far as to write a book on how to do war and win. What first struck me was how he clearly states that war is a science (page 9), that it follows laws and influenced by variables, such that if you do not follow the “scientific method”, in this case “the way of the war”, then you will end up losing (page 9). And we see how this strong affirmation is present in the way he writes his whole book and the language he uses. It is all very detailed, and carefully chosen, and he always gives us different scenarios and that every scenario requires different tactics. But the main idea of war as a science is really interesting. What purpose or effect does treating war like science have on our understanding of revolutions, or our lives in general, I don’t know. Changing the subject, I also like how he describes guerrilla soldiers as social reformers and also agrarian revolutionaries, both of which are true in the context of the Cuban Revolution and he argues, true in all cases of revolutions. Even more interesting, is how he also describes guerrilla warfare as an “embryo” (page 12) in which he describes guerrilla warfare as a prelude to other bigger and significant wars. I can understand this comparison, but I find that it also devalues guerrilla warfare, suggesting that it is ultimately not the one that will lead to victory, the one that will lead to victory is a more advanced stage of guerrilla warfare maybe a civil war. Throughout the book his language is quite metaphorical. For example on page 17 he describes one phase of guerilla warfare as like a queen bee with other bees taking over another beehive. Other things he mentions are ammunitions, food, travel kit, geography, the use of animals, hunting tools, tools to make other tools, a diary to keep notes on, tactical strategies such as destroying enemies’ infrastructure, communication, food supply, etc. Like this is a truly a book intended to teach someone who wants to go to war and learn what it takes. I must though point out what he says about terrorism. On page 21 he clearly distinguishes sabotage which for him is “a revolutionary and highly effective method of warfare” with terrorism which he say is “ineffective and indiscriminate in its results” that it only kills unnecessary people. Although I agree with him on that point, I would also like to see how he views his vision of guerrilla warfare no less different. In the end, innocent people die, regardless of them being the enemy or not, and both are forms of violence created by a group of people who use an ideology or goal as there source of inspiration and justification. Nevertheless, I just found it very interesting how he clearly demarcates guerrilla warfare with terrorism, and on numerous occasions throughout the book. There is also a sense of iconizing guerrilla soldiers, where he describes them as strong, disciplined, teachers, messengers of revolutions, and willing to die without fear. Also interesting to add to these descriptions, is how on page 33 he says that “in Cuban war of liberation, to abandon a weapon is a grave offence”. There is this further sense of cult and macho solider like attitude, that the war encompasses honor and dignity. One other interesting topic to discuss his view of women in guerrilla warfare. On page 92 he starts off by saying that women play a vital role, but then further down contradicts himself saying they play a “minor role”, and furthermore, says their only role in the guerrilla warfare is to cook for men and help with the technical stuff. I just find this interesting as for someone who is fighting for a noble cause which is agrarian reforms, and against an oppressive enemy who is hurting the people, he still has this gender stereotype problem where in his view women should occupy less significant jobs. There are just 5 more things I would very briefly like to say. I like how on page 121 he says “revolutionary indoctrination is the basis of national security”. He is really making it clear that revolutions, and teaching about it, serve in the interest of the people who are oppressed and need to fight back in order to live. Also on page 127 he says “Cuba is the symbol of nationality renewed” and “Fidel Castro is the symbol of liberation”. These quotes are now starting to idealize these concepts of the revolution further. Now on a more important issue, Che at the end of the book leaves us with a very good reflection question, “is guerrilla warfare the only formula for seizing power in Latin America?” I appreciate this quote because it makes us think that there may be other alternatives, not just violence. At least, this is how I interpreted his reasons to be. Then 2 pages later, on page 145 he says that “revolutions are inevitable because of the conditions under which they are made”. This is true, and he further goes on by saying “he who wages war in a country when he can avoid it, is a criminal, just as he who fails to promote war which cannot be avoided is a criminal”. Once again showing that revolutions are necessary and at times inevitable. At the end of reading this novel we obviously see that to him, guerrilla warfare is the only and best means of winning, and which is why he went to great lengths to write this book. He has in this book brought up good points, and one has to admire his determination and cause. But still, after reading this book, I still find it hard to comprehend how someone could have the “audacity” to write a book that promotes and encourages people to take arms and tell them how to successfully do it. Nevertheless, it was an interesting read.