Terror and Consent : The Battle for the Twenty-first Century

by Philip Bobbitt

book data

33 ratings, 3.85 average rating, 10 reviews (more data...)

rating	frequency	%
5		30%
4		30%
3		33%
2		6%
1		0%

edit

published

April 1st 2008 (first published 2007) by Knopf

binding

Hardcover, 624 pages

isbn

1400042437 (isbn13: 9781400042432)

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 futur

...more

find at: Amazon | Half.com | Barnes & Noble | Abebooks | compare prices…

new topic
discuss this book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

friend reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

lists with this book

This book is currently not featured on any Listopia lists. Add this book to your favorite list »

other reviews (showing 1-20 of 118)

sort: default (?) | date
filters: all | text-only

11/20/08

William rated it:

Philip Bobbitt will never write an easy book.

In his previous work, "Shield of Achilles," Bobbitt traces the evolution of the state by looking at how the intersection of strategy and law evolved over the past 500 years. He takes the next leap in "Terror and Consent," focusing on the relationship between terrorism and the state and the need for states to create new law to help battle terrorism.

"Terror and Consent" takes its title from Bobbitt...more Philip Bobbitt will never write an easy book.

In his previous work, "Shield of Achilles," Bobbitt traces the evolution of the state by looking at how the intersection of strategy and law evolved over the past 500 years. He takes the next leap in "Terror and Consent," focusing on the relationship between terrorism and the state and the need for states to create new law to help battle terrorism.

"Terror and Consent" takes its title from Bobbitt's perception that in the era of the emerging market state, dedicated to expanding opportunity for its citizens, two paths have emerged as to how states shall organize themselves. First are states of consent, taking their power to govern from voting citizens. The second is the state of terror, which uses violence to deter people from choosing. The two cannot co-exist, contends Bobbitt.

Key here is Bobbitt's definition of terrorism: the pursuit of political goals through the use of violence against noncombatants in order to dissuade them from doing what they have a lawful right to do. To the state of consent, the state of terror cannot be regarded as legitimate given its coercive nature.

This problem is compounded by "non-state" terrorism, a natural reaction to the evolution of the market state. Also market-based, outsourced and dispersed, such "market state" terrorists fall between the gaps in existing law. Al Qaeda is the current real-life example, but this does not preclude others like AL Qaeda from coming to the fore.

The laws of war, specifically the Geneva Convention, fail to address to address this status because non-state terrorists are not uniformed agents of a state, nor are they "freedom fighters" struggling to establish or liberate a state. But criminal law is equally futile, as non-state terrorists are often captured by the military (legally not authorized to make arrests), often on the basis of "unwarranted evidence" (intelligence, information derived by torture, coercion or hearsay) that cannot be admitted in court or challenged (intelligence sources must stay confidential).

Bobbitt sees a solution to end the ambiguity--fuse law with strategy. Change domestic and international law to delegitimate states of terror, thus allowing states of consent to legitimately take action against them. Likewise, law would be adjusted to deal with terrorists through constitutional forms of preventive detention, so legal voids like Guantanamo cannot exist.

Given the ever decreasing cost of technology and its ever increasing diffusion, it is only a matter of time until states of terror and their non-state proxies can obtain weapons of mass destruction. States of consent cannot afford to risk attack by terrorist enemies by resorting to inaction because they adhered to older law that failed to address new realities.

Bobbitt resists tidy summation. He provides deep and detailed expositions of legitimacy, sovereignty, how war interacts with law, in short, how states change through warfare and law. Each period of history has its "terrorists," be they pirates, anarchists, unpaid mercenaries or "freedom fighting" terrorists. While he ties his arguments in an elegant knot by book's end, he takes pains to explain where every strand comes from and why.

The United States is suffering a legal/political hangover right now given its intervention in Iraq and its expedient reliance on the extra-legal prison at Guantanamo. The Iraq invasion never got any approval from an international body to make the offensive war legitimate, even though Saddam Hussein was pre-empted from restarting his WMD program. Resorting to extra-legal detention, the United States comes off looking like the shabbiest dictatorship, typified by its secret police and secret prisons. Revised international law and domestic criminal law would have protected the US from suffering a loss of legitimacy, in fact strengthening its efforts to fight the War on Terror instead of weakening them.

The United States is in transition from the Bush to the Obama Administration. Many expect the US to make major changes in the way it is fighting terror so that it can restore its reputation and leadership among its allies. "Terror and Consent" is vital reading to understand how the United States is legally and strategically challenged by terrorism, and what it can do to restore rule of law to fight the misrule of violence.

(less)

Like this review? yes (1 person liked it)

add a comment

05/27/08

Russ2 rated it:

bookshelves: partly-read

Philip Bobbitt is currently the Director of the Center for National Security at Columbia University

He firmly believes we are now engaged in the first War Against Terrorism and he sees general confusion in understanding this new kind of war. He suggests that three major prongs of the war that must be pursued are: i) preemption of attacks by globally networked terrorists; ii) prevention of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; and iii) protection of the civilian populace.
...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

04/13/08

Chris rated it:

bookshelves: abandoned, appreciated-not-enjoyed, political

Read in July, 2008

I actually stopped reading this because it was due at the library, and since there is a waiting list I couldn't renew it. It worked as a convenient excuse, however because this dense and serious of a policy book was not meant for summer reading -- I'm gladly moving on to "Death Note: vol.4" as a follow up.

I made it about 1/2 way through, and did enjoy it -- I don't read a lot of hard-core poli-wonk policy books, and the fact that Bobbitt is rather conservative when it come...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

05/27/08

Al rated it:

(review of isbn 0713997842)

This is a new book about how we should deal with the war on Terror. It is very long, and, although it shows signs of serious editing, not a fast read. It's worth sticking with it, though. The author has an integrated set of ideas about what we must do to protect ourselves and others against terror. His ideas make a lot of sense, but unfortunately they will require initiative, action and trust, not only by our government but on the part of other countries. He makes a persuasive case that...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

02/12/09

fbuser19514500 is currently reading it

bookshelves: currently-reading

Difinitive work on the current problems posed by the 21st century wars on terror...Grand strategy at its finest.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

05/22/08

Jim rated it:

as an account of the facts of modern terrorism and the difficulties of the current legal/judicial/governmental mechanisms for dealing with terrorism, its a great success. as a blueprint for how to deal with the complexities of this ongoing threat, its highly unpersuasive. much of bobbitt's argument is based on observations on the evolution of states which he then projects into the future and routinely asserts how the future will in fact evolve on the basis of his model, with at best limited just...more

Like this review? yes

add a comment

05/20/08

Marcel marked it as to-read (review of isbn 0713997842)

bookshelves: to-read

From the NYTimes Boo Review: this is quite simply the most profound book to have been written on the subject of American foreign policy since the attaacks of 9/11--indeed since the end of the cold war.

Like this review? yes

add a comment

11/07/08

Paul rated it:

Read in November, 2008

A pleasurable but unfortunately muddied application of his theory from "The Shield of Achilles."

Like this review? yes

add a comment