<p>As is the case after most wars, there has been a flood of material of varying quality on the so-called “BushWar”. Much of this material is written by lay historians. The method of the historian is explained in an attempt to clarify why it is more difficult and more time-consuming for the historian to produce history, than it is for the journalist to produce popular-historical literature.</p> <p>The task of the historian can be facilitated by improving the accessibility of documents. However, the unauthorized destruction of documents, official papers in private possession, document security, inadequate or fragmentary primary sources, and the existance of relatively few memoirs and autobiographies can prove problematic.</p> <p>The writer suggests that a general amnesty for soldiers, increased flexibility with regard to security and the closer involvement on the part of the soldier on the ground, will go a long way to improving the conditions under which military historical research takes place.</p>