|
Terror and Consent : The Wars for the Twenty-First Century | 
| Author: Philip Bobbitt
Publisher: Knopf
Category: Book
List Price: $35.00
Buy New: $20.11
You Save: $14.89 (43%)
New (33) Used (5) from $18.75
Avg. Customer Rating:  8 reviews
Sales Rank: 1144
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 688
Shipping Weight (lbs): 2.2
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.3 x 1.7
ISBN: 1400042437
Dewey Decimal Number: 363.320973
EAN: 9781400042432
ASIN: 1400042437
Publication Date: April 1, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Brand new book. Over 3.5 million customers served. Order now. Selling books online since 1995. Order with confidence. Code: B20080516225610T
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| 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 3 more reviews...
 An interesting apology for a new world order May 16, 2008
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.
 Appallingly Ignorant ; Another Nail in "Bi-Partisan" Coffin April 27, 2008
10 out of 42 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.
Terror and Consent April 16, 2008
7 out of 34 found this review helpful
Terror and Consent : The Wars for the Twenty-First Century
An awful rant for the new world order.
Give up your rights for your "safety"? This guy would have us believe the nation state is dead. The corporate elite have so devastated national economies with their so called "free trade agenda" which enabled them to search the world for the most vulnerable economies to ship your jobs to.
Are sure we want this model of corporate governance to replace nation states.
Slavery is what this academic is promoting.
Boot this shill, of the new world order, off any campus that would indoctrinate our children to give up their rights to this growing threat
of the new world order.
Globalist Propoganda April 16, 2008
10 out of 36 found this review helpful
This book is a blatant attempt to indoctrinate the ignorant into believing that we must give up our liberty and dismantle the U.S. Constitution to be safe. This of course is an outright lie. This book is biased towards a Globalist world view and reads like it was written by someone who had the entire Bilderberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations looking over his shoulder as he was writing.
To the remaining patriots out there and those who love freedom and justice, make no mistake. Mr. Philip Bobbitt is an enemy of the American people and an enemy of freedom.
 Read Niall Ferguson review in NYTimes 4/13 April 13, 2008
20 out of 47 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.
|
|
|
Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| |
