Terror and Consent : The Wars for the Twenty-First Century

Location: Home » body art - tattoo » War & Peace » Terror and Consent : The Wars for the Twenty-First Century

Similar Items:

•	The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History
•	The Post-American World
•	The Return of History and the End of Dreams
•	Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45
•	The Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order

Editorial Reviews:

Product Description

An urgent reconceptualization of the Wars on Terror from the author of The Shield of Achilles (“magisterial”— The New York Times, “a classic for future generations”—The New York Review of Books). In this book Philip Bobbitt brings together historical, legal, and strategic analyses to understand the idea of a “war on terror.” Does it make sense? What are its historical antecedents? How would such a war be “won”? What are the appropriate doctrines of constitutional and international law for democracies in such a struggle?

He provocatively declares that the United States is the chief cause of global networked terrorism because of overwhelming American strategic dominance. This is not a matter for blame, he insists, but grounds for reflection on basic issues. We have defined the problem of winning the fight against terror in a way that makes the situation virtually impossible to resolve. We need to change our ideas about terrorism, war, and even victory itself.

Bobbitt argues that the United States has ignored the role of law in devising its strategy, with fateful consequences, and has failed to reform law in light of the changed strategic context. Along the way he introduces new ideas and concepts—Parmenides’ Fallacy, the Connectivity Paradox, the market state, and the function of terror as a by-product of globalization—to help us prepare for what may be a decades-long conflict of which the battle against al Qaeda is only the first instance.

At stake is whether we can maintain states of consent in the twenty-first century or whether the dominant constitutional order will be that of states of terror. Challenging, provocative, and insightful, Terror and Consent addresses the deepest themes of governance, liberty, and violence. It will change the way we think about confronting terror—and it will change the way we evaluate public policies in that struggle.

Customer Reviews: Read 14 more reviews...

2 out of 5 stars

A PRIVATIZED WORLD AND ITS ENEMIES April 5, 2008
114 out of 153 found this review helpful

Bobbitt graciously sent me a pre-production copy of this book. Unfortunately, the book is a complex and legalistic edifice based on several flawed assumptions.

To save you the time required to read it. Here's a synopsis.

The premise of the book is that we are in the midst of a transition to a market-based global order. This means that the nation-state (and even the entire notion of public governance) will be replaced by corporate surrogates (via outsourcing) operating on a global level. The basis for the legitimacy of this new order will be that it offers individuals more choices than ever before (the political parallel to a fully stocked supermarket). However, its emergence will be at the expense of minimal safety nets and communitarian efforts.

The enemy of this newly emerging market-based system, and the main focus of this book, are (naturally) terrorists. Terrorists, Bobbitt claims, fight us because they hate the choices provided to us by this emerging market-world.

The way they fight us is by limiting our choices through terror. Terror, in this context, is essentially theater. In this theater, disgruntled people (Islamic terrorists and beyond) will use the threat of flamboyant attacks to limit the choices offered by the market-world. Since the market-state will continue to produce ever greater levels of choice to an ever greater number of people, this clash is inevitable. Therefore, our societal objective is to harden ourselves (through smart legal maneuvers and investments in infrastructure) to limit the the levels of terror that can be produced by our opponents. By doing this, we can buy time as the market-world continues to expand to ever greater numbers of people.

_________________________

I was hopeful that Bobbitt would approach terrorism in a more nuanced way than merely through the lens of the prevailing narrative fallacy (for example: "The Looming Tower"). Unfortunately, he didn't and his depiction of terrorism is merely as a means for disgruntled groups to negate choice (a variant of Bush's "they hate us for our freedoms").

A more complex and realistic view of terrorism is to approach it as illegal warfare directed against civilians. This warfare also has more complex objectives that merely limiting choices through the production of terror. In many cases, it advances the groups that conduct it economically, socially, etc. (usually at the expense of state competitors). For example: Nigeria's MEND, Brazil's PCC, Mexico's Cartels/Zetas, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Colombia's FARC, Peru's Sendero Luminoso and most of the groups in Iraq/Afghanistan (who advance through smuggling/corruption/etc.). Unfortunately, Bobbitt didn't deviate from the simplistic view of terrorism and his book suffers mightily from the result.

I also have a problem with the market-state and market-world construct. First, it's vague. Second, it is potentially ruinous. While choices may be available, it says nothing of your ability (your means) to exercise those choices. Who cares if the supermarket offers unlimited choice if you can't afford anything but the generics? It's very likely a market-state would reduce human worth to a mere economic value at the cost of the bonds that hold us together as a community. Perversely, this would serve to create the very violent groups that use terrorism to advance their own economic/social level, since no other values have any power to mitigate/dissuade an impulse to violence. In short, Bobbitt's market-state, a society legitimized by "choice" alone, is insufficiently credible as something we should a) help emerge and b) defend.

Hope this helps.

John Robb, author of:
Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization

5 out of 5 stars

A seminal work on terror, the state, and the law April 9, 2008
42 out of 54 found this review helpful

The work is sophisticated and explores, among other things, how strategy must align with the rule of law if our policies on terror are to succeed. This is a good read and well ahead of the proverbial curve. You will see the themes of this book, again and again, in the popular literature on terrorism. Enjoy!

In the first page, Professor Bobbitt introduces a broad definition of terror which includes the socially debilitating effects of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, as well as man-made disasters, including terrorism and human rights violations. This is both an accurate and elegant definition - it encompasses things that diminish the human condition; and it is a practical definition in an age of transnational threats where multi-lateral action is a necessity. "We are fighting terror, not just terrorists." I like that.

Yet how does a state effectively and legitimately pursue such policies and enact such cooperation? This question inevitably raises strategic and constitutional issues.

Professor Bobbitt's approach compels a reexamination of strategy, which includes how we organize our resources and conceptualize intervention - peaceful or otherwise - in the highly complex and uncertain environment of the 21st century. And here he makes the case that the alignment of strategy with law is absolutely essential. Our response to terror must be from the legal high ground; which, one hopes, also corresponds to the moral high ground.

I especially liked his detailed discussion of bio-terrorism and the detailed rebuttal to the International Institute for Strategic Studies Adelphi Paper - Nuclear Terrorism After 9/11. This, in conjunction with the background surrounding the A. H. Khan nuclear proliferation network, drives home the importance of a sound and multi-dimensional response to the proliferation of WMDs. Bobbitt draws on the likes of Brian Jenkins, Mary Kaldor, and Sir Michael Howard to both sustain his points and provoke argument. This is good stuff!

I have touched on one element in this brief review. There are numerous theoretical forays in this book that is rich with historical detail and anecdote, as well as legal and policy theory...much more than can be adequately summarized in a few paragraphs.

One should never judge a book by its cover; however, one can judge the credibility of the message and that of its author by looking at the citations in the back of the book. Professor Bobbitt is meticulous. There are over 100 pages of detailed footnotes; and in the text, there are often 5 or 6 citations per page! This detail is invaluable in providing a deeper and more contextually rich background to the text. Compare this level of professionalism with some of the popular literature on terrorism that, if the author is an especially generous mood, has 12 or so footnotes per Chapter.

Professor Bobbitt is "the best of the best." His work demonstrates an intellectual tradition the hallmark of which is well reasoned argument supported by detailed references and intellectual rigor. Why would you settle for anything less?

5 out of 5 stars

Read Niall Ferguson review in NYTimes 4/13 April 13, 2008
24 out of 53 found this review helpful

If John Robb's review sounds more like rant than review you might try the review by Niall Ferguson in the 4/13 NYTimes. I have not read the book but will assuredly be buying it today. However in perusing other reviews it appears that Mr. Robb may have scanned it just a little too fast and missed the entire idea. Best to limit the weight given to his comments untill more readers weigh in.

4 out of 5 stars

An interesting apology for a new world order May 16, 2008
15 out of 19 found this review helpful

The study of terrorism as both a reality and as a philosophy has generated a voluminous literature in the past decade, most of this no doubt because of the terrorist attacks against the United States in 2001. Whenever a country like the United States is victim to an attack, whether it is classified as terrorism or not, it is safe to say that a lot of grandiose rhetoric, patriotic fervor, and an excess of moralizing will result. Such activities may serve as a catharsis, but in the long run one needs an intelligent, rational discussion of terrorism, so as to discover which institutional and individual changes must be made in order to deal with it effectively. And when entering into this discussion, one must be prepared to examine the evidence and arguments carefully, and be willing to put aside to the best of one's ability, the extreme biases that can arise in legal and political dialog. Lastly, whatever methodology one agrees upon for dealing with terrorism, one must be willing to get actively involved in the realization of this methodology. This means that one must not assume this burden will be taken on by someone else, and excuse oneself from military conflict if such does arise.

In this lengthy book, which must be studied in-depth in order to give it a fair analysis, the author indulges the reader in such a rational discussion. It is perhaps better appreciated if the reader is familiar with the author's earlier works, but he does give enough background so that the book can be studied independently of these. Many of the author's recommendations and analysis will no doubt provoke many readers to anger , but if such readers can work through their emotions they may find that the author has a great deal to offer when it comes to dealing with one of the most important issues in the twenty-first century. But although the discussions are keen on rationality, the author fails to confront the personal obligations that everyone faces when confronting the "war on terror", for he does not address the question as to who is to be involved in actual combat. Nowhere in this book does he discuss the reasons as to why he excuses himself from participating in the fighting.

For this reviewer, one of the most mistaken and dangerous perceptions of government is that it is responsible for protecting the populace from crime rather than merely being responsible for the apprehension of criminals and their punishment. In order to protect a citizen from criminal or violent acts the state must have knowledge that such acts are going to occur. Since such foreknowledge is impossible, the state must rely on intelligence estimates and probabilistic assessments, forcing it to become a surveillance state with all its attending dangers and threats to privacy and civil liberties.

But the author argues throughout the book that this kind of activity is just what is necessary to fight the "war on terror". But most importantly, he believes that this activity will be tolerated by the general populace since we are entering a world of the "market states." The market state is to be distinguished from the "nation state" of the twentieth century by its emphasis on insuring that its citizens have the empowerment they need to pursue their economic and personal interests. On the surface this sounds good, but it makes the implicit assumption that citizens will be willing to be servile to a degree that they will enjoy living under the protectionist umbrella of what could accurately be called a "nanny state." But there seems to be strong libertarian undercurrents in the political situation at the present time, and these trends may prohibit the "market state" of the author from being realized as he describes it.

From a study of the book, particularly the discussions on American constitutional and international law, it is fair to say that the author is advocating a new world order. Since change is what the twenty-first century is all about, one must not be frightened at the prospect of changes in domestic and governmental institutions. But any changes that are going to be made must be measured against the degree of the threat they are designed to deal with. The author underestimates the resilience and fortitude of the general citizen, and overestimates the ability of terrorism to bring this same populace to its knees. In addition, he undervalues the importance of technology in negating the terrorist threat. Yes, terrorist use of biotechnology is something of great concern, but any bio-weapons the terrorist might use could be made ineffective by bio-countermeasures. Developing these bio-countermeasures should be part of the "war on terror" as well as countermeasures to other types of weapons of mass destruction.

The author also does not emphasize the power of education in assisting the general citizen in dealing with perceived and actual terrorism. A populace that is "terrorist-aware" and cognizant of the terrorist exploitation of psychological impact will be able to deal effectively with a realized terrorist attack, remain relatively calm, and not allow terrorists to dictate their attitudes and emotions. The same could be said for the media, which are the targets of a lot of criticism from the author in this book, some of this justified. A responsible media, trained according to sound journalistic ethics, would not deliberately or inadvertently hype up a terrorist event, satisfying the terrorist craving for attention--just think of the ramifications if the press and all governmental representatives would have been completely silent after 9/11. The supporters of the 9/11 attacks would no doubt have felt cheated and extremely disturbed as to what the next move the American government was going to be. Such silence could be an effective use of psychological warfare against the terrorists.

But along with articulating ideas that could be highly effective in fighting the war on terror, the author also makes some statements that are definitely outlandish. For instance, he refers to the doctrine of deterrence during the cold war as a "brilliant intellectual achievement", forgetting that it does not take the decisions of people to trigger a catastrophic nuclear war; technology mishaps such as false alarms can do the same. He also refers to the immoral American participation in World War I as the "most selfless international intervention by a major power", forgetting the horror it brought to soldiers and their families. Wilson and the American government were definitely wrong in getting involved in that war, and Wilson's pronouncement that Americans needed a "serious moral adventure" has to rank as one of the most outlandish in all of American history, even if compared to the many statements one hears from the current American regime.

But the author has many interesting ideas, and this work deserves serious consideration from those who are concerned with the evolution of the legal structures, both domestic and international, that need to be put in place to fight a successful war on terror. The author's outlines new conceptions of state sovereignty and takes on the topic of torture without reservation. And such legal structures are part of a classical optimization game, in that the privacies and rights of every world citizen must be respected while at the same time still being successful militarily. But when the citizens of the world decide to make changes in legal frameworks to fight the war on terror, they need to remember that inkblots on paper do not fight such a war. People do. And participation from everyone in this war must follow immediately once the decision has been made as to its necessity.

1 out of 5 stars

Appallingly Ignorant ; Another Nail in "Bi-Partisan" Coffin April 27, 2008
14 out of 71 found this review helpful

Edit to make the point that it is not just the Democratic advisors, but the Republicans as well, that are witless. Everyone is playing the "realpolitic" or the "looting" game and no one, NO ONE, is playing for seven plus future generations and a win-win for all. I am sick of this.

Edit to list the eight "tribes" that comprise the TOTALITY of the global political environment. The "market" manufactures evil because of information asymmetry and the concentration of secret power. Here are a few more books that I cannot link to. You folks that are negative on this review may not be interested in reality, but I assure, you reality is very interested in you.

Tribes: government, military, law enforcement/private security, academia, business (including off the books business in poor areas), media, non-governmental organizations, and civil societie including labor unions and religions.

Other books:
Manufacture of Evil
Voltaire's Bastards
No Logo
Disaster Capitalism
Pandora's Poison
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
Battle for the Soul of Capitalism
Crossing the Rubicon
Rule by Secrecy
How the World Really Works
Broken Branch
Broken Government
etc.

I normally do not do negative reviews while seeking to understand negative votes in the comments section. In this one instance I feel that national-level remediation is required. This is where I draw the line. No more pencil-heads advising village idiots. It's time we put citizen wisdom and BROAD knowledge back into PUBLIC policy. This author is the "Paul Wolfowitz" of the Democratic Party, and just slightly less dangerous than Dr. Strangelove (Brzezinski).

----------------

Terrorism is a tactic. It has been used by the US and Israel. Anyone who does not understand that is not qualified to write about national security and the real world. Neither Obama nor Clinton nor McCain represent anything more than continuation of the two party spoils dystem that disenfranchises close to two thirds of the Nation. They are advised by people like this and Dr. Strangelove (Brzezinski) and I am coming to the conclusion we have to demand candidates that can lead national conversations and dismiss all their "old think" advisors.

Furthermore, any book that refers to natural disasters as Acts of God without realizing that their destructive power, frequency, and changing nature are in fact Acts of Man, is so far down on the intellectual pecking order as to be virtually irrelevant. See my reviews of, among others:

Acts of God: The Unnatural History of Natural Disaster in America
Catastrophe & Culture: The Anthropology of Disaster (School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series)
The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural, Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters

I am increasingly appalled at the complete ignorance of both political parties and their candidates for President. I never thought I would consider Hillary Clinton the least of all evils, but there you have it--Obama is listening to Zbigniew Brzezinski with one last Dr. Strangelove attack on Russia left in him, and John McCain is dangerously open to the neo-conservatives and a continuation of America's virtual colonialism, predatory immoral capitalism, and unilateral militarism. For a sense of my concerns see, among many others:

Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People
A Power Governments Cannot Suppress
The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism

Here is what is NOT in this book:

LtGen Dr. Brent Scowcroft, with utterly brilliant pinch hitter Newt Gingrich (when he is not writing shallow books for cash flow), have given us all we need to know to reform national security. Read my review of

A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility--Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change

That extraordinary book itemizes, in priority order, the ten high-level threats to Humanity and to the USA, rapidly becoming a Third World hollow country where everything is broken:

01 Poverty
02 Infectious Disease
03 Environmental Degradation
04 Inter-State Conflict
05 Civil War
06 Genocide
07 Other Atrocities
08 Proliferation
09 Terrorism
10 Transnational Crime

The astute reader will note that the Pentagon is optimized for just one of those threats, and may properly surmise that the other instruments of national power (diplomacy, information, economics) are not trained, equipped and organized to "do" intelligence (decision support) on the real world, nor are the funded to "impact" on our domestic strength, much less the real world. The Cabinet Departments are optimized to protect budget share and represent every stakeholder EXCEPT the labor unions and We the People. Here are the twelve policies that must be orchestrated in the context of a balanced sustainable budget (the astute reader will see that both Congressional jurisdictions and the Executive branch must be restructured if this is to be done well):

01 Agriculture
02 Diplomacy
03 Economy
04 Education
05 Energy
06 Family
07 Health
08 Immigration
09 Justice
10 Security (of ALL kinds including water and food)
11 Society (dignity and diversity matter)
12 Water

It is sheer idiocy to use up water we do not have to grow grain we do not need to make fuel for cars that would be better fueled by Cuban sugar cane sap.

Finally, on a third front most academics and policy makers ignore (as well as the media): NOTHING the USA or European Union do in the next ten years matters AT ALL with respect to the future UNLESS they create an EarthGame that can compelling guide the eight demographic challengers (Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, and Wild Cards such as the Congo) to achieve their growth and development goals--while saving the 60 failed states--without making our mistakes.

To treat them as anything other than partners in the future--to try to push Russia out of Syria and China out of Africa and Brzezinski is trying to do--flexing muscles he does not have in anticipation of a position he will not get--is idiocy. It's time for the old farts (less Scowcroft) to move into retirement homes--but then, that's what CSIS is, is it not?

Bottom line: I am sick and tired of pontifical myopic academics posturing for ignorant presidential candidates too stupid to fire their advisors and lead a national conversation about our future. There are MANY books I have reviewed about Epoch B bottom-up citizen wisdom and the tao of democracy, here are the ones I have enough links left for (limit of 10, see my many lists):

The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom
How to Change the World: Social Entrepreneurs and the Power of New Ideas, Updated Edition

You might also look for books on collective intelligence, escape the matrix, society's breakthrough, world cafe, and so on. There are two sucking chest wounds in America: one is policy makers and elected leaders that have sold We the People down the river and have no clue about why and how complex societies are collapsing or what to do about it; the other is pedant academics with insular prescriptions that have no clue how to see the whole (system of systems) nor how to address the real world beyond their narrow ken.

This author writes for the former and represents the latter. I am depressed by this author's contribution, because along with the state-centric confrontational nuclear-holocaust proxy war views of the neo-cons and Zbigniew Brzezinski (and Joe Lieberman, both of them perhaps the best penetrations of the Democratic Party ever fielded), we appear to be headed straight toward self-immolation as a Nation.

Powered by Associate-O-Matic

T-shirts, Posters

Pentagram T-shirts, bags, etc...

Gothic Posters

Antique Map Reproductions

Che Guevara shirts
and accessories