s/t: Why It Has Always Failed and Why It Will Fail Again
Although terrorism seems a relatively modern phenomenon, novelist and military histori... read full description
reviews
Nov 09, 2010
Lumpenprole
rated it: 
There were several very good things about this book. First, Carr gives a very concise, readable history of terror through the ages, the growth and ultimate descent into incompetence of the US intelligence establishment (the story of James Forrestal was a new one on me) and I could note no overt bias in terms of one political party or theory over any other...though I'm not so sure about Carr and American "Exceptionalism." Sometimes it seems like he believed it, other times not.
More...
More...
Jul 22, 2009
James
rated it: 
Caleb Carr's analysis of the workings of terrorism, which he wrote after the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan but before the invasion of Iraq, is clear, well organized, and compelling. He makes an eloquent case for seeing terrorism as counterproductive as well as immoral, whether practiced by groups like Al Qaeda or by nations either in the course of fighting wars or in the ways the CIA and KGB have used it at times. The book explains the idea of limited war, as seen in actions
More...
0 comments
like
(3 people liked it)
Jul 28, 2011
Patrice
rated it:
Even if you don't like history, this book might blow your mind a little bit.
Military history has never been my strong suit; however Carr's work makes such a topic not only readable, but relevant. He sets out to trace the origins of terrorism and warfare on civilian populations-- along the way he makes some intriguing points about how we arrived at modern warfare.
The sheer amount of material Carr has managed to cover in less than 300 pages is enough to make any historian cringe; there are More...
Military history has never been my strong suit; however Carr's work makes such a topic not only readable, but relevant. He sets out to trace the origins of terrorism and warfare on civilian populations-- along the way he makes some intriguing points about how we arrived at modern warfare.
The sheer amount of material Carr has managed to cover in less than 300 pages is enough to make any historian cringe; there are More...
Apr 10, 2009
Tony
rated it:
In spite of some fo the negative reviews here, I think it was an excellent book. I was worried it would be a right wing screed against bleeding heart liberals allowing Islamo-fascism to take over the world unless we nuke the bastards, but it is a well reasoned historical treatise that makes some very good points.
I wish the critics had posted what their actual objections were to his history or his analysis, since I don;t se it.
His premise is that terrosism- targeting civilians s More...
I wish the critics had posted what their actual objections were to his history or his analysis, since I don;t se it.
His premise is that terrosism- targeting civilians s More...
Mar 08, 2011
Kris
rated it:
A tight look at warfare against civilian poulations starting with the Romans and coming to the September 11 attacks in the US. Carr makes a great amny valid points about the futility of waging war on innocent bystanders.
It's highly readable for laypersons and a page turner, though gramatically someone should teach him what a split infinitive is and how to edit his sentences.
It's highly readable for laypersons and a page turner, though gramatically someone should teach him what a split infinitive is and how to edit his sentences.
Jul 20, 2009
Reuben
rated it:
I great look at the history of warfare and how terror has played a substantial part in it's evolution. From prehistoric tribal warfare to modern times, Carr has passionately collected these essays that examine terror as strategy. My only criticism is that Carr's fervor intermittently colors otherwise factual accounts. Regardless, it's still a good read, one I'd recommend to others.
Jul 12, 2009
Kathleen
rated it:
I can remember reading this years ago and found myself nodding my head most of the way through. At the time Carr's ideas were more novel than they would be considered today. For the uninitiated, however, it would still be a good read.
Jan 27, 2009
Toni
rated it:
A very interesting analysis of the use of terrorism & some of the theories of warfare throughout the ages. It questions US tactics, which some readers will probably not appreciate. I think everyone should read this book--especially following on the heels of George W. Bush's spectacularly failed presidency.
Jul 26, 2011
Richard
rated it:
It made me reconsider my "knowledge" about military strategies and tactics. Perhaps this should be required reading for those that would defend our way of life. I speak as an USAF Academy graduate.
Nov 23, 2008
Patrick
rated it: 
Neither Carr's knowledge of military history nor his writing about it impressed me. He should stick to fiction. There are some interesting ideas here, though.
Feb 11, 2011
Marg
rated it:
I thought the ideas were clear, concise, and reasonable. The book also pulled me in emotionally.
Dec 17, 2009
Jeremy
rated it:
This books gives lengthy and interesting account of attacks on civilians throughout history and the bottom line for attacks (particularly vicious and cruel) on civilians stiffen the resolve of the the civilians against you. Granted, attacks have been carried out by countries/their armies have been resulted in victories but the authors argument is that victories are not because of the cruelty, but in spite of the cruelty.
Oct 10, 2008
Frederick
rated it:
This book is about the proper response to terrorism and, although it makes some interesting points, it is riddled with historical distortions and flawed arguments. It was also written before the invasion of Iraq and makes a case for invading Iraq which, of course, events have subsequently rebutted completely. Anyway, while I like his writing style, LOT is about 50% longer than it should be.
Sep 20, 2011
Seth
rated it:
A readable and fascinating history of terrorism going back to the Roman empire. Carr's basic thesis is that, overall, terrorism fails miserably at its long-term objective--and often produces the opposite effect.
Dec 17, 2009
Terry
rated it: 
Carr is an excellent writer and seems to have done some very good research in this book, but the conclusions he draws from that research are unsupported and, in my opinion, unsupportable.
Aug 10, 2008
Franziska
rated it:
I had to read this book for a class. It had some interesting arguments regarding how we perceive/justify etc. war fare. Interesting enough, but not too compelling.
May 22, 2008
Hans
rated it:
An Interesting thesis about how terrorism is ultimately self-defeatist in that after enough innocent casualties they lose support for their cause.
Oct 27, 2008
Adam
rated it:
I liked how this book explains the rationale behind our attackers, and how futile most violence is.
Jun 22, 2008
Del
rated it:
It's a weak historical account of terror and war, wouldn't recommend the purchase !
Dec 24, 2010
Ilya
rated it:
This essay-length book argues that warfare against civilians always fails because the civilian community (tribe, nation, civilization) strike back at the warriors, given enough time. As The eXile's War Nerd (John Dolan) correctly asks on Amazon.com, what about the American Indians? Warfare against them succeeded admirably. Strategic bombing in World War II may or may not have been useless, but the Germans and the Japanese did not strike back at the Allies because of it. I am not a specialist in
More...
Feb 09, 2012
Feb 08, 2012
Feb 02, 2012
Jan 20, 2012
Jan 18, 2012
