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

by Philip Bobbitt

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.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Law, War, Terrorism, Political Science

688 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2008

About the author

Philip Chase Bobbitt is an American author, academic, and public servant who has lectured in the United Kingdom. He is best known for work on military strategy and constitutional law and theory, and as the author of Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution (1982), The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace and the Course of History (2002) and Terror and Consent: the Wars for the Twenty-first Century (2008).

Reviews

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Nick Turner · Rating 1 out of 5]

The extent of Saudi backing for both Al-Qaeda generally and the 9/11 attack specifically - which should have been obvious from the 28 classified pages of the 9/11 report but has now been revealed to the public due to lawsuits against the kingdom by the victims’ families - calls into question Bobbitt’s posited distinction between terrorism perpetrated under the nation-state paradigm and his “market state” construct. Al-Qaeda has proven not to be a diffuse, networked non-state actor that defies national borders and acts independently of nation-state support but instead to have relied on the backing of a traditional nation-state as was true for terrorists like Carlos the Jackal throughout the 20th century. But, of course, a bootlicker and moral coward like Bobbitt never touched the fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by a U.S. ally and that fact was kept hidden from the public by the U.S. government.

I was a former law student who read “Terror and Consent” for his class, so I’m familiar with just how ethically vacuous he and the vast majority of legal academics can be. The fact Kissinger described him as a political philosopher alongside the likes of Hannah Arendt or John Rawls is laughable. There is a reason Bobbitt has so little to say on the “exercise of conscience” or, more accurately, the act of judgment in his “Wittgensteinian” works on Constitutional argument. Despite that being the interesting philosophical question in jurisprudence - how do judges and statesmen descriptively decide hard cases and how ought they to do so - it is simply an area in which Bobbitt is personally inexperienced. Bobbitt is a naked careerist who was lucky enough to be born LBJ’s nephew, nothing more. I defy anyone to find in his work a critical remark about the powerful in the United States, as opposed to a turgid justification for the status quo.No one can claim the United States and its allies represent “States of Consent” and not “States of Terror” after the genocide in Gaza. The entire “post-war liberal international order” that has been hectored at the world has been rendered bunk. The notion of the Rule of Law, the very foundation of liberalism, seems a cruel joke after the US simply ignored international tribunals that have in vain tried to hold the Israelis to account. Evil is truly banal.

https://www.propublica.org/article/sa...

https://youtu.be/jOwJA1zPFtw?si=KYTDy...

I also suggest researching Omar al-Bayoumi for more details.

[John Jr. · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you’ve wondered in recent years whether it makes sense to talk about a “war on terror,” you’ve grappled with one of the questions this book addresses. Over the course of 548 pages of text (accompanied by roughly 100 pages of notes), Philip Bobbitt argues that the nature of nations is changing, the nature of warfare is changing, and the nature of terrorism is changing; as a result, he proposes, after some careful examination (everything in the book is carefully examined), that we can speak of making war on terror, not just on terrorism. He has a three-point argument on that issue, in fact: terror may arise from a terrorist attack (which could take any number of forms), from the use of WMD by a state or a non-state actor, even from a large-scale natural disaster. Acting to prepare for and/or prevent each of these possible calamities is what Bobbitt means by fighting the “wars on terror” that he expects will occupy much of our attention during the 21st century. He offers a number of fairly detailed proposals (and humbly suggests that they may serve only to further the conversation); one essential feature is that he calls for preserving and expanding the rule of law, instead of sidestepping laws and conventions as the Bush administration has frequently done. Notably, his rigorous and systematic arguments do not fit easily into either conservative or liberal compartments. Which is probably a sign of how thoroughly Bobbitt has thought things through.

The depth and breadth of Terror and Consent call for a more careful consideration than I can give it in a short space. I suggest you read Niall Ferguson’s April 2008 review in The New York Times. Incidentally, Ferguson praised it as “quite simply the most profound book to have been written on the subject of American foreign policy since the attacks of 9/11—indeed, since the end of the cold war.”

[This review written in 2008, based on an advance uncorrected proof. Slightly revised here.]

[UChicagoLaw]

Presents an historical and theoretical framework for understanding the national security and constitutional challenges of terrorism. Panoramic in scope, brimming with keenly observed details. No reader will be persuaded on every point, but no reader will ever think about these issues in the same way again. It deserves wide readership. - Thomas J. Miles

[Muhammed · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is amazing. It offers a very interesting view of the current situation. The conflict between strategy and law and how to resolve it. The amazing thing is that we are practically still in the same position as when the book was published.
As for the war on Terror, he goes back into history and offers a historical background on Terror and its relationship with the state model. Going on step by step to how the current market state affected terror and its evolution to the current model.
He offers interesting approach to tackle the drawbacks in the existing system.
It is a very interesting book, it kept haunting me to finish it.

[Catie Choi · Rating 1 out of 5]

I will preface this by acknowledging — who am I to be leaving such a critical review? (Answer: an absolute nobody.) But this book is, in my opinion, horribly outdated. Whether it was because of that or a complete difference in opinion, I disagreed with pretty much everything. Two decades (?) have passed since the book’s initial publication, and I believe time has proven to be on my side. A great man though!

[Joe Born · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this a while ago, but a damn good book, provides a thoughtful framework for thinking about the modern world, more true today than when I first read it, at least at the high level that I can recall.

[Ari Fordsham · Rating 3 out of 5]

Important but heavy

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Powerful.

[Grace · Rating 3 out of 5]

Highly informative but boring

[Steve Barrera · Rating 4 out of 5]

The follow up to Philip Bobbitt's "The Shield of Achilles," about changes in the consitutional order precipitated by changes in military strategy, and an equally magisterial work. Meaning, an equally long and heavy read, with a lot to process since the author is a highly educated legal scholar. In the sequel, Bobbitt elaborates on the interplay between strategy and law in the case of the challenge of combating global networked terrorism. I thought the original was a more well rounded book, since it worked from basic principles and elaborated on them to describe the different versions of the state throughout history. This book is forward-looking, and more speculative, but worth a read if you are interested in Bobbitt's line of reasoning. It did give me much to think about on the nature of government, and of war, and of their meaning to us denizens of this new century. I particularly appreciated the understanding of the difference between government by terror (the leaders are prompted by God while the people watch) and government by consent (the people are prompted by the leaders while God watches). I certainly hope, as I know Bobbitt does, that government by consent prevails in the 21st century.

[Tin Wee · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book is written in academic prose and is definitely not easy reading. The crux of the book is that the nature of states is changing from the ‘nation state’ (which emphasizes material well being for the nation) to what the author describes as ‘market states’ (which emphasizes opportunities for the people). The current regime has artificial distinctions which impact among other things management of threats/ persons/ intelligence depending on whether they are external/ internal to the country. However, the changing nature of the state has blurred this distinction and such distinctions which are hardcoded in law are hampering the security agencies in the fight against terror.

There is thus a need to review the state constitutions (author refers primarily to those in US and UK) and international laws, so that we are better able to deal with terrorists who exploit the weaknesses of the current legal regime.

I found some of the ideas proposed somewhat abstract – while I don’t necessarily agree with how the author has defined the nature of states for example, there is some truth that the nature and relationships within and between states are changing with the advent of new communications technologies and economic markets. I also found the book somewhat idealistic – given the latest drama involving the health reform bill and the current state of partisan politics, I don’t see how the US will undertake any of the legal reforms suggested, which proposes far more fundamental change. Nonetheless, I agree with the author that such changes are a necessary first step if the US is to repair its credibility in the eyes of the international community, and have stronger support for the leadership role in which it wants to play.

Some statements made through the book strike me as strange tho – the US is the only country that can repay its debts in its own currency? Yeah, right.

[C. · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 comes to economics (very libertarian/free-market) and foreign policy was interesting as well, as I don't spend a lot of time reading non-fiction that challenges my ideas and world-view. I spent half the book finding ideas I agreed with and half the book finding ideas that I found frighteningly conservative, and almost all the book intrigued by his analysis, which focuses around the move from nation-states to market-states and his thesis that a)terror groups always parallel the dominant form of government, and that al Qaeda is the first of an emerging group of market-terrorists and b)that the War on Terror should be interpreted as literal and not metaphorical, thus our military efforts cannot result in the terror themselves and that our they should equally against natural disaster prevention as armed conflict.

I completely lack the background and qualifications to analysis any of that here, so I won't try -- the Times and other sources have done that better than I can. I plan on finishing it (when the demand has died down).

[Christy Peterson]

Oliver DeMille says this about this book and I wanted to remember it for when I read it.


"Bobbitt goes on to discuss the danger that in responding to the terrorist threat we are in danger of adopting the belief that "the ends justify the means." He discusses both sides of this idea, and suggests that we are fighting for the rule of law and had better be sure that this fight doesn't compromise our ability to defend ourselves.

This is bigger than most people consider, and the easy answers aren't good enough. On one extreme, the idea is that whatever it takes to maintain our defense is good---even if that means reduced freedom and a secret government. At the other extreme, the argument is that we should get rid of any and all secrecy and just let the government decide under the original constitutional rules---even though terrorists will strike before we can respond. There are many mid-road arguments; such as declaring war officially on terrorism and responding to it through military channels.

I think what we really need is for this discussion to be wide-spread. I hope you'll read Bobbitt's book and really think about it. And I hope you'll re-read the Constitution and The Federalist Papers and really think about them. Then I hope you'll go a step further. Terrorism is a threat. A secretive government is a huge threat. What should we do? Seriously, what would Washington do, or Jefferson? We need leaders like them today. And the only way we'll get them is if regular citizens really think about those things and share their conclusions. "

[Eric Atkisson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit of a difficult read at times, but worth the effort for anyone interested in the subject. Bobbitt's well-reasoned analysis of how nation-states and terrorism have evolved, without the corresponding changes to our institutions and laws necessary to more effectively combat terrorism, is one that transcends political partisanship--in fact, as he acknowledges at the end of the book, there is something there to offend almost every consituency. But the things he says need to be heard, especially by those who persist in thinking that global terrorist organizations like al Qaeda can be effectively deterred by either all-out war or conventional crime-fighting measures. They and other terrorist organizations like them exist in a nebulous category that international law and domestic laws have not yet come to grips with, and which the governments of "states of consent" have been slow to address--a critical vulnerability which the terrorists themselves have been quick to exploit. If the states of consent do not revise and amend their laws and institutions to acknowledge this reality, they will continue to erode their moral authority by necessarily violating laws that have become too outdated to cope with the existence of modern terrorist organizations, whose members, for example, are not, and cannot be treated as, either prisoners or war OR unlawful combatants under Geneva Conventions that were written at a time when the only war that the authors could imagine were conventional ones between organized nation-states.

[Paula Obermeier McCarty · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started writing this post last year and couldn't find an adequate way to finish it. I just couldn't consolidate my thoughts enough to put it together and show how impressed I was by the ideas presented in it. Since then, as I have watched the changes and discussions taking place in the U.S. and in Europe, I have been even more impressed. I would highly recommend it for anyone who would like some insight into recent political and economic events and also the increasingly bitter and polarizing divisiveness that seems to be tearing our county apart.

It saddens me to see the increasing anxiety and fearfulness about the economy and the future of our country that I see in myself and in others. This seems concerning because historically most countries have not made the wisest choices when their people have been afraid and anxious about their future.

Anyway, it was a fascinating book about how the nature of terrorism has changed in response to the market states beginning to emerge from the current order of constitutional nation states. I also enjoyed his previous book "The Shield of Achilles" (about how the types of legitimate orders of states have changed over time.).

[Paddy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bobbitt's writing ability is the best I've come across in political science or law, and this book was a pleasure to read. However, he over-reaches with his broad, all-encompassing conclusions about terrorism and law.

He makes a good case for a series of policy measures (more information-sharing between intelligence agencies; a league of democracies; following the rule of law during wartime; treating terrorism as a military as opposed to criminal threat), but they are overshadowed by such claims as "terrorist organizations are a mirror of the constitutional order of an epoch and have been throughout history," "the nation state maximized welfare, but the market state will maximize opportunities" or "terrorism is a end, not a means". These claims are so massive and general that I can't possibly agree with them, and they weakan Bobbitt's arguments. I think this is a case of the desire for an appealing, overarching narrative blocking out his smart security analysis.

[Al · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 we can ill afford not to take action, but it seems depressingly clear that, at least at this point, our country is not able to do that. Whether the results of this inertial will be as dire as he predicts remains to be seen, but it's certainly possible.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

An important book examining the challenges of dealing with 21st century terrorism within the contraints of contemporary understandings of nation states, international law and warfare.

Bobbitt offers some insightful analysis and attempts to address the interrelationship between the changing constitutional order and terrorism. I found the analysis of the evolution of the constitutional order of states, our understandings of warfare and the nature of terror and terrorism compelling, but the projections of how to address future critical challenges less persuasive. The book is well-written, informed and broad in scope but makes some sweeping generalisations which are not sufficiently supported. Nonetheless, it is thought-provoking and worth the read.

[Sherief · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bobbitt is surprising and his book is surprisingly nuanced. From any end of the political spectrum, there's much to agree on in this book. Many of the things you think you'll want to disagree with in this book (e.g., that a war on terror exists and may be a good thing) you may end up finding yourself compelled by, at least a bit. Ultimately it's nice to read a book laced with poetry and drama, relishing in intellectual history, and trying to wrap a temporary dilemma into a larger discourse about changes in the nature of political sovereignty. Best enjoyed as the author himself would have it, with cigars and single malt.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 justification...

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book's argument is based on a distinction between the nation state and the market state which does not entirely convince. Given the fundamentals of Bobbitt's thesis are bound to this distinction the entire enterprise is undermined by the author's inability to convince on this salient point.

Nontheless, this is a compelling work of history, if not of political science.

Worth a look by readers deeply interested in Terrorism and the re-definition of the State as it exists in the world today.

Rating: 3 out of 5

[Joshua Deaver · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book that dives into the question, "What is Terror?" It is truly a work of Academia which is something I wasn't looking for yet enjoyed. I had trouble putting it down. I can honestly say I don't agree or fully understand every aspect of Bobbitt's train of thought but a fascinating read nonetheless. Not only does this book speak of acts of terror, but the ideas of terror and the modern day idea of what terror is and should be.

[Joe · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bobbitt offers a sensible way to deal with issue of nukes in hands of terrorist states and non-state-affiliated terrorists: change international law to mandate intervention when a state commits atrocities against its citizenry, develops nukes or harbors zombie terror dudes. If we don't, "We will face a threat to mankind that is unprecedented and is potentially measureless in its tragedy." We're talkin' nuclear winter blues, y'all. Jun 02, 2013 11:05AM

[Dave · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is not 'Shield of Achilles,' but it is still very good. My favorite part was in the beginning where he recounts how states have dealt with terrorism over the past 500 years. This section is a kind of recapitulation of 'Shield' from a different perspective.

[Carl · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is dense.

[Noreen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Tough going at times, especially since I much prefer to read fiction, but very worthwhile.

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

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

[Timothy]

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

[Ray Packham · Rating 3 out of 5]

as per usual Philip Bobbet uses too many words, but he in my opinion is basically correct an interesting if not long winded book , but well worth a read