Rads: The 1970 Bombing of the Army Math Research Center at the University of Wisconsin and Its Aftermath

Judy (pal to some) sent this book to me. she like me went to Madison during the late 60's. you did not go to the UW you went to Madison. The school was just part of the place, you grew up in. some never left. I started to read it while reading all my Neuro-Science stuff, my latest kick. then it consumed me. especially the last 100 pages. this non-fiction book is incredibly well researched and written. history is not easy, nor is reality. of course it is special to me since this bombing took place one month after I graduated and left Madison. it was the exclamation point on my experience. as they say many changes took place. I think it is a must read for any young person of today. with the war in Iraq it is so timely to see the difference in generations. to see that the generation of then is now the silent majority sitting back and watching history repeat itself, as they say always happens. but then again history is hard to grasp. I think this book would be the foundation of a monster screen-play and movie. the whole situation has so many angles and levels. I lived thru this but I did not know anything about this bombing. it was so interesting to me to learn now about it in such detail. but at the edges I shared the same experiences: the Mendota State Hospital for the Insane, professors Mosse and Goldberg, the politicos like Soglen, Mates, the celebrities coming thru town, to disappoint, etc. I think this book more then any other I have read explores how a young generation was traumatized. back then the terrorists were in the White House. perhaps they still are? out of this trauma came the utter materialism of the last 20 years, this is a perspective as to why. many dreams exploded before and with that building. Jess, aka Henry Dribble, class of 70

I knew bombers David Fine and Leo Burt as fellow members of The Daily Cardinal staff and figuratively crossed swords with them at editorial meetings over the strident content of staff-written editorials. Bates manages to weave together an number of parallel narratives so the book reads like a novel. To do this he gives colorful, sometimes cruel physical descriptions of his characters, reconstructs conversations that took place years earlier, and describes the thoughts of characters, including Leo Burt, who has never been found and whom, we must presume, Bates never had the privilege of interviewing. But Bates understands his role as journalist and historian and with the above reservations, I believe he performed it well. He documents the role of the Army Math Research Center in advancing the military capabilities of the U.S., and does so with a lucidity and economy of words that I never found in the exposes of Jim Rowen, who investigated the AMRC in the late '60's and helped inspire the bombing. Rads traces the influence of three well-known UW history professors, including the Marxist Harvey Goldberg. Their conflicting views illustrate the diversity of thinking about anti-war tactics and revolution. It is interesting to note in this book how many radicals turned to violence after being beaten by police at anti-war demonstrations. At last this book is the story of Karl Armstrong. The narrative reveals Karl as confused, ambivalent and in every instance incompetent as an anti-war terrorist, fugitive and defendent, whose achievements were made possible by the countervailing bungling and in-fighting of the authorities. I can at the drop of a hat regale people with hilarious episodes of Karl's stupid criminal tricks, but of course that shortchanges the gravitas and the tragedy of this major episode in 1960s American radicalism. I do not fault this book for proposing that abuse by his father laid the psychological groundwork for Karl's venture into violence. Bates did not weave this interpretation into his narrative, and I would be disappointed if an author did not offer his interpretation of events after devoting years to their study. The result is that Karl comes across as a sympathetic character, and his anti-war motivations are not discredited.

There are many accounts of the sixties which romanticize the activism against the war in Vietnam. RADS provides a sober account of the events surrounding the bombing of the Army Math Research Center in 1970. With the meticulous insight of an historian, Bates provides an overview of the events relating to the bombing without the bias of left or right-wing ideology. His riveting account has the ring of journalistic accuracy rather than stooping to advance a particular political point of view.

Tom Bates presents the bombing of the AMRC within an intriguing, captivating story. As a high school senior, I have not lived through the war and the anti-war movement. Nonetheless, RADS provided me with enough background information to understand the book (based around the bombing) on both the specific level and the larger scheme of things.Bates introduces the 'romantic' appeal of political radicalism in the late 60s and early 70s logically and insightfully. In addition, throughout the book, the reader gets to know the bombers and the people with whom they interact.The book does not include any extraneous chapters. Bates has a reason for every section of the book that he includes. Because of this, the book is never slow to read; much of the book is very suspenseful, set up by the well-chosen quotes that begin every chapter.This book is a must-read for anyone who is interested in radicalism, historic bombings, or the anti-war movement of the 60s and 70s.

RADS manages to capture the sometimes-hysterical jollity of the 1960s and hints at why a conservative governor once described the city of Madison as "25 square miles surrounded by reality." Aside from that, the only thing I can add to the preceding reviews is that when RADS was published in 1992, the present-day remnants of Madison's radical community greeted it with outrage. The crux of their criticism seemed to be that Bates portrays Karl Armstrong's motivation as being more personal than political; that he was seduced by the romantic aura of radical activism and lashed out because of deep-seated rage against his father, who had physically abused Karl when he was a boy. Karl Armstrong himself was quoted in a Madison newspaper as calling RADS "bullsh--."I think there's some validity to the radical criticism, based on the way Bates withholds the fact of the abuse until page 429 of a 446-page book. Revealing it at the end is a trick out of Jerry Springer, one which cheapens the book. On the other hand, I also can't help thinking that the radical criticism came from people who didn't want to admit that the bombing was a foolish, self-destructive act which effectively discredited the antiwar movement in Madison and, to a lesser extent, the rest of the country. By criticizing Bates' ploy, they didn't have to grapple with the wider implications of RADS. The 1980 film THE WAR AT HOME documents the Madison antiwar movement (including the bombing) from the radical perspective. It implies that the bombing was a logical if tragic response to U.S. government oppression (it includes much disturbing footage of assorted law-enforcement agencies "controlling crowds" with nightsticks and teargas). It's interesting to see the film and read the book and note how they differ in both interpretation and (sometimes) factual detail.I'd really like to know what happened to Leo Burt, the bomber who was never captured.