What do you think?
Rate this book
Terrorism and War
Truth—as Zinn shows us in the interviews that make up Terrorism and War—has indeed been the first casualty of war, starting from the beginnings of American empire in the Spanish-American War. But war has many other casualties, he argues, including civil liberties on the home front and human rights abroad. In Terrorism and War, Zinn explores the growth of the American empire, as well as the long tradition of resistance in this country to U.S. militarism, from Eugene Debs and the Socialist Party during World War One to the opponents of U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan today.
159 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2002
17 people are currently reading
1588 people want to read
About the author
Howard Zinn
246 books2,872 followersHoward Zinn was an American historian, playwright, philosopher, socialist intellectual and World War II veteran. He was chair of the history and social sciences department at Spelman College, and a political science professor at Boston University. Zinn wrote more than 20 books, including his best-selling and influential A People's History of the United States in 1980. In 2007, he published a version of it for younger readers, A Young People's History of the United States.
Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." He wrote extensively about the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and labor history of the United States. His memoir, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (Beacon Press, 1994), was also the title of a 2004 documentary about Zinn's life and work. Zinn died of a heart attack in 2010, at the age of 87.
Zinn described himself as "something of an anarchist, something of a socialist. Maybe a democratic socialist." He wrote extensively about the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement and labor history of the United States. His memoir, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (Beacon Press, 1994), was also the title of a 2004 documentary about Zinn's life and work. Zinn died of a heart attack in 2010, at the age of 87.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
May 19, 2012
This book articulated clearly a lot of what I already felt and feel about the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Zinn does an excellent job of articulating the ways in which the media, religion and nationalism were used to whip up support for the War on Terror, and in articulating how it was not just the war on Iraq that was and is unjust, but the war on Afghanistan as well. He calls for looking for more sensible and sustainable solutions to the problem of terrorism, and acknowledges the horror of military intervention as he acknowledges its massive power and potential for destruction. At the end of the book, Zinn makes a prediction that the American people will eventually wake up from the havoc that the wars have wreaked. That seems to be happening, however, the response from the government is predictably chilling. Still, there is space for joy and laughter in social movements, something I have not seen in some time. We may not reach the mountaintop, but dammit, we're trying to get there, bit by tiny bit.
Read
January 1, 20222021: Top 10 Book List
‘Dune’ by Frank Herbert
‘Like Water for Chocolate’ by Laura Esquivel
‘Beloved’ by Toni Morrison
‘Caliban and the Witch’ by Silvia Federici
‘Middlesex’ by Jeffrey Eugenides
‘Parasite Rex’ by Carl Zimmer
‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’ by Walter Rodney
‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ by Jared Diamond
‘The Prophet’ by Kahlil Gibran
‘Child of the Dark’ by Carolina María de Jesús
‘Dune’ by Frank Herbert
‘Like Water for Chocolate’ by Laura Esquivel
‘Beloved’ by Toni Morrison
‘Caliban and the Witch’ by Silvia Federici
‘Middlesex’ by Jeffrey Eugenides
‘Parasite Rex’ by Carl Zimmer
‘How Europe Underdeveloped Africa’ by Walter Rodney
‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ by Jared Diamond
‘The Prophet’ by Kahlil Gibran
‘Child of the Dark’ by Carolina María de Jesús
August 31, 2015
I had wanted to read this book for some time, being that I am a fan of much of Zinn's work. I some how managed to come across this book at a charity book store and I was most excited. I soon devoured the pages and though it was a quick read and like most of Zinn well written. I felt some what let down.
The book is formatted in a way that has Zinn responding to questions, so it is not so much a book as it is a Q and A compendium. Being that this book was written soon after the US invasion of Afghanistan, it is very much a book of that era and focuses a great deal on George Bush and the contemporary regime. Though Zinn, in his talented knowledge does divulge into some short history lessons to help the reader greater appreciate that today does not suddenly happen without a yesterday. These brief historical interludes are most certainly springboards for further reading to help paint the complete picture for the reader.
Because of the nature of the Q and A format, I found that the book was not so much suited to myself but more for those who have a very shallow understanding of history and the military-political reality. That is in no way a knock against the book just a misfire for myself as I was hoping for something more specific, despite the books slight size in the flesh. In that regard Zinn for the most part, as always, does very well.
The problem I have, this is not merely with Zinn, is the continued stressing of dissent and how Government always lies. How one should always find themself in opposition to the Government and its brutal self service. Zinn and many of his fellow Left wing dissenters seeing the Government as being a vehicle for 'capitalism' and the monied elites. But to Zinn's credit and unlike many other left leaning dissenters, he acknowledges that warfare and imperialism predates 'capitalism' or the capitalism as to be understood by many of the Left. My problem is that Zinn leaves his dissent for the Government and his distrust for it at the door when it comes to social welfare issues, education and other domestic social structuring policies.
Though he does not touch on it in great deal in this book, he does lightly dress over it.
How can one proclaim that Government is dangerous and should not be trusted, except when it is charged with a health, pensions and children's minds ? Yet the very same entity which so brutally and terribly destroys so many in its many wars from drugs to terror bumbling as it does in these eforts with so many others lives, is some how suppose to have wisdom, consideration and restraint enough to command such important social programs ? It is a position of incomplete focus that I find lacking for many on the Left. And this is why I find myself often in support of men like Zinn in their foreign policy out looks that are based on ideology inspired by empirical facts but always wandering away when they refocus on domestically challenged matters that are based on sheer ideology with a disregard for such empirical considerations.
It is just a continuing theme I find in Zinn's work where he perhaps is incomplete in some of his ideals. He is so focused and passionate about the many crimes of Imperialism abroad that he perhaps does not give as greater consideration to other aspects of governance. This is not a criticism I project lightly as I have tremendous respect for men like Zinn and his consistency when it comes to his anti war efforts.
This book is very good for many of those who do not consider much beyond their day to day and who so simply trust the word of the State as being honest and with modest intent. For those who are some what better read on such matters it for the most part only goes over much of what is already known. In any case I do recommend it as a quick and reinforcing read, written by one of the greatest anti war minds from any generation.
70%
The book is formatted in a way that has Zinn responding to questions, so it is not so much a book as it is a Q and A compendium. Being that this book was written soon after the US invasion of Afghanistan, it is very much a book of that era and focuses a great deal on George Bush and the contemporary regime. Though Zinn, in his talented knowledge does divulge into some short history lessons to help the reader greater appreciate that today does not suddenly happen without a yesterday. These brief historical interludes are most certainly springboards for further reading to help paint the complete picture for the reader.
Because of the nature of the Q and A format, I found that the book was not so much suited to myself but more for those who have a very shallow understanding of history and the military-political reality. That is in no way a knock against the book just a misfire for myself as I was hoping for something more specific, despite the books slight size in the flesh. In that regard Zinn for the most part, as always, does very well.
The problem I have, this is not merely with Zinn, is the continued stressing of dissent and how Government always lies. How one should always find themself in opposition to the Government and its brutal self service. Zinn and many of his fellow Left wing dissenters seeing the Government as being a vehicle for 'capitalism' and the monied elites. But to Zinn's credit and unlike many other left leaning dissenters, he acknowledges that warfare and imperialism predates 'capitalism' or the capitalism as to be understood by many of the Left. My problem is that Zinn leaves his dissent for the Government and his distrust for it at the door when it comes to social welfare issues, education and other domestic social structuring policies.
Though he does not touch on it in great deal in this book, he does lightly dress over it.
How can one proclaim that Government is dangerous and should not be trusted, except when it is charged with a health, pensions and children's minds ? Yet the very same entity which so brutally and terribly destroys so many in its many wars from drugs to terror bumbling as it does in these eforts with so many others lives, is some how suppose to have wisdom, consideration and restraint enough to command such important social programs ? It is a position of incomplete focus that I find lacking for many on the Left. And this is why I find myself often in support of men like Zinn in their foreign policy out looks that are based on ideology inspired by empirical facts but always wandering away when they refocus on domestically challenged matters that are based on sheer ideology with a disregard for such empirical considerations.
It is just a continuing theme I find in Zinn's work where he perhaps is incomplete in some of his ideals. He is so focused and passionate about the many crimes of Imperialism abroad that he perhaps does not give as greater consideration to other aspects of governance. This is not a criticism I project lightly as I have tremendous respect for men like Zinn and his consistency when it comes to his anti war efforts.
This book is very good for many of those who do not consider much beyond their day to day and who so simply trust the word of the State as being honest and with modest intent. For those who are some what better read on such matters it for the most part only goes over much of what is already known. In any case I do recommend it as a quick and reinforcing read, written by one of the greatest anti war minds from any generation.
70%
November 9, 2021
Terrorism and War is an interesting book to read now that the U.S. war in Afghanistan has finally ended after 20 years. It's easy to lob criticism at the invasion and occupation with the benefit of hindsight, but it is quite impressive how much Zinn got right even in 2002. Most notably, he points out that the war will fail to end terrorism, in part because bin Laden became a sort of human representation for a much larger concept. Even with him dead, terrorism and even the Taliban, persist.
Zinn pokes holes in the logic of the invasion, not only in terms of the human cost of war and its inability to achieve stated goals, but in terms of the fealty to George W. Bush and his promises that pervaded both government and media. Lack of interrogation of the premises that led the country to invade Afghanistan gave us a war with a nebulous strategy for achieving grand goals. For virtually any policy, most anyone would tell you that reasoned debate and clear articulation of how actions will achieve goals is necessary. Zinn here describes clearly how this process became impossible amidst an atmosphere of obsequiousness and fear.
The book is a series of interviews, and the interviewer, Anthony Arnove, mostly just mentions ideas to Zinn and then lets him share his thoughts. Had Arnove done more to question Zinn, the things he postulates would have held more weight. Zinn is quite optimistic about mass movements' ability to push back against erosion of civil liberties here, and it would have been good to make him justify this optimism more.
Looking at the cover of the book and the impetus for its publication, it's easy to have the notion that it is "of a time" and mostly irrelevant to current goings-on. On the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks this year, a thought occurred to me. A huge portion of defense policy, both in terms of foreign occupation and support and in terms of domestic surveillance, is the result of 9/11 and its use as a political cudgel detached from the real suffering of the event. Nonetheless, twenty years later, there is little public discussion of the extent to which these policies are even successful, not to mention whether there worth the loss of life and freedom that they entail. Terrorism and War is relevant because it raises these questions, and it will continue to be relevant until policymakers reassess the policies that followed the attacks.
Zinn pokes holes in the logic of the invasion, not only in terms of the human cost of war and its inability to achieve stated goals, but in terms of the fealty to George W. Bush and his promises that pervaded both government and media. Lack of interrogation of the premises that led the country to invade Afghanistan gave us a war with a nebulous strategy for achieving grand goals. For virtually any policy, most anyone would tell you that reasoned debate and clear articulation of how actions will achieve goals is necessary. Zinn here describes clearly how this process became impossible amidst an atmosphere of obsequiousness and fear.
The book is a series of interviews, and the interviewer, Anthony Arnove, mostly just mentions ideas to Zinn and then lets him share his thoughts. Had Arnove done more to question Zinn, the things he postulates would have held more weight. Zinn is quite optimistic about mass movements' ability to push back against erosion of civil liberties here, and it would have been good to make him justify this optimism more.
Looking at the cover of the book and the impetus for its publication, it's easy to have the notion that it is "of a time" and mostly irrelevant to current goings-on. On the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks this year, a thought occurred to me. A huge portion of defense policy, both in terms of foreign occupation and support and in terms of domestic surveillance, is the result of 9/11 and its use as a political cudgel detached from the real suffering of the event. Nonetheless, twenty years later, there is little public discussion of the extent to which these policies are even successful, not to mention whether there worth the loss of life and freedom that they entail. Terrorism and War is relevant because it raises these questions, and it will continue to be relevant until policymakers reassess the policies that followed the attacks.
February 17, 2015
articulates the standard left response to the subject matter: 'terrorism' is a crime to be handled by law, rather than war, which is itself also a crime.
October 27, 2017
Pretty good and still holds up. A great exemplary of how the USA's collective psyche went through "temporary schizophrenia" post-9/11.
December 11, 2024
I have my problems with Zinn, I still find his words to be a great pathway for pulling people of all stripes to the left. Sue me.
June 1, 2014
A lesson in double-speak and the futility of sanctions
18 January 2013
I guess the difference between terrorism and war is the same as that between a pirate and and emperor, namely that the emperor acts on the authority of a state where as a pirate acts upon his own authority, but when we raise the question of the source of that authority we wonder whether there is any real difference between a pirate and an emperor. As the pirate king said to Alexander the Great, the only difference between the two was that Alexander had an army.
The same would apply to the terrorist and the freedom fighter, namely that one acts on the authority of a state while the other acts upon their own authority, but even then those distinctions become blurred. The French Resistance acted on their own authority during World War II but also acted in the interests of the Allies, though theoretically were probably no better than the insurgents that acted against the Americans in Iraq and Vietnam. In fact, the insurgents in Vietnam were acting under the defacto authority of the North Vietnamese.
However the idea from this book is not the question of the source of the authority that allows one to go to war and forbids the other. When Saddam invaded Kuwait without authority he was punished, but when the United States invaded Iraq without any authority, no punishment was metered out. It is much easier to place economic sanctions against a tinpot dictatorship than it is place them against an economic superpower, however that, in many cases is changing. For instance, manufacturing is moving outside of the United States, and the United States is no longer considered to be the sole superpower with the rise of China. However, the problem is that the Chinese and American economies are so intertwined that it would be hard, if not impossible, for China to survive with sanctions against the United States. Yet, we also must remember that there was a very similar situation in the lead up to World War I with a similar symbiotic relationship between England and Germany.
The question of sanctions against a superpower also brings us back to the Napoleonic Wars. Here Napoleon attempted to place sanctions against England in an attempt to starve England economically. Basically it did not work, and while he had control of the European Continent, he did not have complete control, which was why he had to invade Russia. Further, it did not actually starve England because England was a sea power who was able to draw upon her colonies to survive. She could be isolated from Europe without facing any ill effects, and in fact she had blockaded Napoleon's ports and also destroyed his navy at Trafalgar, which gave her unprecedented control of the seas.
Then again who suffers in a war? The easy answer is that it is the civilians. When economic sanctions are levelled against a country it is not the ruling elite who suffer, and it is not necessarily their army that suffers either but it is the average civilian. If the idea of sanctions is to starve and weaken the power of a rogue dictator it generally does not work. Take North Korea for instance: despite years of economic sanctions the army is still strong enough to keep the leaders in power. The leaders still have their luxurious palaces and the army still has food in their stomach, but the average civilian is struggling daily to stay alive. What is happening is in fact the opposite: the civilians are becoming weaker which means their ability to rebel against the leadership is sapped away while the position of the leadership becomes stronger because the population is no longer able to rebel against an army that is still being fed.
The best way to undermine such a power is to undermine the army because it is the army that keeps the ruling elite in power. We are seeing this in North Africa, where we have Gadaffi's army deserting him forcing him to rely upon a mercenary force. Okay, without Western intervention, Gadaffi would have won, and if Gadaffi had enough money to support an army, then he has enough money to support a mercenary force. In the situation of many of these people there does not actually seem to be any concern that they will be killed because even though Gadaffi was on the losing side, he was still able to bring mercenaries in. I guess it is the whole risk/reward principle. People still gamble despite the knowledge that the odds are weighed against them because of that small chance that the odds will shift, even for a moment, into their favour.
18 January 2013
I guess the difference between terrorism and war is the same as that between a pirate and and emperor, namely that the emperor acts on the authority of a state where as a pirate acts upon his own authority, but when we raise the question of the source of that authority we wonder whether there is any real difference between a pirate and an emperor. As the pirate king said to Alexander the Great, the only difference between the two was that Alexander had an army.
The same would apply to the terrorist and the freedom fighter, namely that one acts on the authority of a state while the other acts upon their own authority, but even then those distinctions become blurred. The French Resistance acted on their own authority during World War II but also acted in the interests of the Allies, though theoretically were probably no better than the insurgents that acted against the Americans in Iraq and Vietnam. In fact, the insurgents in Vietnam were acting under the defacto authority of the North Vietnamese.
However the idea from this book is not the question of the source of the authority that allows one to go to war and forbids the other. When Saddam invaded Kuwait without authority he was punished, but when the United States invaded Iraq without any authority, no punishment was metered out. It is much easier to place economic sanctions against a tinpot dictatorship than it is place them against an economic superpower, however that, in many cases is changing. For instance, manufacturing is moving outside of the United States, and the United States is no longer considered to be the sole superpower with the rise of China. However, the problem is that the Chinese and American economies are so intertwined that it would be hard, if not impossible, for China to survive with sanctions against the United States. Yet, we also must remember that there was a very similar situation in the lead up to World War I with a similar symbiotic relationship between England and Germany.
The question of sanctions against a superpower also brings us back to the Napoleonic Wars. Here Napoleon attempted to place sanctions against England in an attempt to starve England economically. Basically it did not work, and while he had control of the European Continent, he did not have complete control, which was why he had to invade Russia. Further, it did not actually starve England because England was a sea power who was able to draw upon her colonies to survive. She could be isolated from Europe without facing any ill effects, and in fact she had blockaded Napoleon's ports and also destroyed his navy at Trafalgar, which gave her unprecedented control of the seas.
Then again who suffers in a war? The easy answer is that it is the civilians. When economic sanctions are levelled against a country it is not the ruling elite who suffer, and it is not necessarily their army that suffers either but it is the average civilian. If the idea of sanctions is to starve and weaken the power of a rogue dictator it generally does not work. Take North Korea for instance: despite years of economic sanctions the army is still strong enough to keep the leaders in power. The leaders still have their luxurious palaces and the army still has food in their stomach, but the average civilian is struggling daily to stay alive. What is happening is in fact the opposite: the civilians are becoming weaker which means their ability to rebel against the leadership is sapped away while the position of the leadership becomes stronger because the population is no longer able to rebel against an army that is still being fed.
The best way to undermine such a power is to undermine the army because it is the army that keeps the ruling elite in power. We are seeing this in North Africa, where we have Gadaffi's army deserting him forcing him to rely upon a mercenary force. Okay, without Western intervention, Gadaffi would have won, and if Gadaffi had enough money to support an army, then he has enough money to support a mercenary force. In the situation of many of these people there does not actually seem to be any concern that they will be killed because even though Gadaffi was on the losing side, he was still able to bring mercenaries in. I guess it is the whole risk/reward principle. People still gamble despite the knowledge that the odds are weighed against them because of that small chance that the odds will shift, even for a moment, into their favour.
March 9, 2008
A compilation of interviews with Howard Zinn between September 2001 and January 2002, I found the content here to be insightful in a way typical of Zinn, but maybe a little repetitive (due to the format of the compilation). It is interesting now, several years later, to read interviews so soon after 9/11, when the shock and hurt of that event were still fresh, and the turn to nationalistic rhetoric was so quick and unquestioned. Zinn critiques the call to unity "we have to line up behind our president" and "either you are with us or with the terrorists", describing it as "a lynch spirit" and a danger to democracy. It is interesting now that all the focus on Afghanistan has long been shifted to Iraq, that the war is still going on with no end in sight, and that this once eerily sycophantic spirit has diminished to what are now Bush's comically-low approval ratings and a public distaste for the War in Iraq.
I am always simultaneously refreshed and disheartened when reading Zinn. He encourages everyone to explore history and current events for themselves, and he reams both George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush with the same vigor with which he reams Clinton or JFK. But he presents everything as a conspiracy theory; every event as being manipulated into some sort of propaganda. We'll never know the truth, he says, we just have to educate ourselves as best we can and choose to believe the most likely story. I'll keep voting and I'll keep up with the news, but I'm grateful politics don't consume me as much as they did five years ago. It's so frustrating and exhausting, and doesn't really accomplish anything.
I am always simultaneously refreshed and disheartened when reading Zinn. He encourages everyone to explore history and current events for themselves, and he reams both George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush with the same vigor with which he reams Clinton or JFK. But he presents everything as a conspiracy theory; every event as being manipulated into some sort of propaganda. We'll never know the truth, he says, we just have to educate ourselves as best we can and choose to believe the most likely story. I'll keep voting and I'll keep up with the news, but I'm grateful politics don't consume me as much as they did five years ago. It's so frustrating and exhausting, and doesn't really accomplish anything.
March 9, 2016
Obviously, publication here was prompted by and in reaction to the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, Terrorism and War is the first full-length work in a number of years. Acutely observant, this sagely historian presents the facets of America's War on Terrorism not covered on CNN or in White House press meetings. The book is in the format of a lengthy interview chunked out in chapters. This approach directs the discussions directly to the mechanics and motivations of America's situation and response. However, this also interrupts the fluid narrative and detailed contextualization found in Zinn's other works, like A People's History of the United States. It is fairly widely known that irony that the U.S. directly supported Taliban et al against Russia as part of the Cold War, but Zinn goes further to reveal more. Zinn disconnects the WTC even from Pear Harbor comparison. (This is not a military attack between nations.) Zinn also unveils the duplicity in America's previous war initiatives. Not only does Zinn recall such recent engagements as Grenada, but the able historian summons up such remote affairs as the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor (vis-à-vis the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen) and the Mayaguez affair which nearly led to out-and-out war with Cambodia. Among the appendices are relevant extractions from the Geneva Protocol on civilian safety during engagements. The 160-page has a thorough index.
September 11, 2014
Very satisfying... I was overjoyed when I found this slim volume at a garage sale. Zinn's People's History of the United States was a real eye-opener for me and I'd highly recommend this man's work to anyone.
This book reminded me a lot of Noam Chomsky's Power and Terror which came out around the same time, has a similar viewpoint, and even shares the same question and answer format. The most important takeaway from both books I think is to question the modern definition of terrorism. Of course when radical groups like Al Qaeda kill civilians - that is terrorism. But both Zinn and Chomsky want us to ask why it's not also considered terrorism when states commit similar acts of violence. Is it not terrorism when we drop bombs or use drones and kill civilians? It's a question worth considering.
This book reminded me a lot of Noam Chomsky's Power and Terror which came out around the same time, has a similar viewpoint, and even shares the same question and answer format. The most important takeaway from both books I think is to question the modern definition of terrorism. Of course when radical groups like Al Qaeda kill civilians - that is terrorism. But both Zinn and Chomsky want us to ask why it's not also considered terrorism when states commit similar acts of violence. Is it not terrorism when we drop bombs or use drones and kill civilians? It's a question worth considering.
December 18, 2013
Howard Zinn is a brilliant man whose knowledge of history speaks for itself. Regardless of the issue, Zinn's outlook remains positive as he seeks to enlighten the world concerning the need for a non-violent means of interacting with one another. This tremendous, brief set of interviews touches on many American-Imperialist related events from the past 250 years, but specifically the U.S. reaction after September 11, 2001 and our rejoinder, Bush's "war on terror" & offensives in Afghanistan.
Read
March 16, 2008I don't remember much about this except that i had trouble with it.
January 3, 2011
Everyone should read Howard Zinn...
August 15, 2018
This book is based on a series of interviews with Howard Zinn conducted by Anthony Arnove between September 2001 and late January 2002. The interviews which took place in Cambridge and Boston Massachusetts, Providence Rhode Island, and New York City, in person and by phone were then edited by Arnove and expanded by the author. The notes and more detailed references were added in the editorial process.
Truth – as Zinn shows us in these interviews has indeed been the first casualty of war, starting from the beginnings of American Empire in the Spanish-American War. But war has many other casualties, he argues, including civil liberties on the home front and human rights abroad. Zinn explores the growth of the American empire, as well as the long tradition of resistance in this country to U.S. militarism. I recommend this book to every American but also to any lover of truth and peace. This is a fantastic short read but anyone who follows my reviews will know that I can’t justify anything higher than a three for such a short read, 150 pages to be exact.
We need to rethink our position in the world. We need to stop sending weapons to countries that oppress other people. We need to decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the politicians’ or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children. War is terrorism, magnified a hundred times – Howard Zinn
Truth – as Zinn shows us in these interviews has indeed been the first casualty of war, starting from the beginnings of American Empire in the Spanish-American War. But war has many other casualties, he argues, including civil liberties on the home front and human rights abroad. Zinn explores the growth of the American empire, as well as the long tradition of resistance in this country to U.S. militarism. I recommend this book to every American but also to any lover of truth and peace. This is a fantastic short read but anyone who follows my reviews will know that I can’t justify anything higher than a three for such a short read, 150 pages to be exact.
We need to rethink our position in the world. We need to stop sending weapons to countries that oppress other people. We need to decide that we will not go to war, whatever reason is conjured up by the politicians’ or the media, because war in our time is always indiscriminate, a war against innocents, a war against children. War is terrorism, magnified a hundred times – Howard Zinn
March 16, 2023
this is a pretty good entry level analysis of the american war machine especially in the context of the early 20th century. if you’re already pretty familiar with the topic you won’t get very much new info out of it, but it’s still an enjoyable read. i got through it in two sittings, as it’s only 120ish pages long and not very dense. overall i would recommend this book to anyone who’s new to reading theory, but wants to learn more.
January 18, 2020
4.5 I learned a lot. Ended up wanting more. The Q&A format did take away from getting in depth about his claims and the historic background of his assertions. Nonetheless, it gave me an understanding of how government has lied in the past in order to pursue many wars. Also how terrorism is linked to outsiders (and outsiders only) is fascinating AND horrible. Good short read!
April 21, 2021
An in-depth interview with Zinn giving historical context to the military response taken by Bush "W" in the aftermath of 9/11. While espousing pacifist views, Zinn brings in examples from history in lengthy responses.
October 1, 2023
A nice scathing critique of the Bush administration and the response to 9/11 in the early days of the invasion of Afghanistan.
Not a lot new here in terms of ideas, but Zinn was largely correct and vindicated in retrospect.
Enjoyable read.
Not a lot new here in terms of ideas, but Zinn was largely correct and vindicated in retrospect.
Enjoyable read.
May 7, 2024
One of the best collection of interviews with Zinn, I've read. For me it really puts into perspective the antiwar sentiment post 9/11. I was way too young to understand any of it, but as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq continued I understood the antiwar sentiment.
June 8, 2017
Sobering.
November 30, 2018
Could understand about the importance of anti-war movements and dialogues related to it.
January 14, 2019
An interesting reminder about the nature of war and the importance of being skeptical regarding war narratives.
April 30, 2021
The book gave me additional insight into the Global War on Terror and the parallels to previous conflicts.
August 17, 2021
Outstanding. A huge amount of information is conveyed despite this only being a transcription of an interview with Zinn.
September 20, 2021
A bit centrist, but, has a lot of guts than most American authors.
April 10, 2023
thank you to Anthony Arnove for keeping Zinn’s words alive!
June 9, 2024
glad I kept this book from undergrad….not sure I was ready to digest it back then (considering I never read it) but glad I read it now
August 28, 2025
A must read for anyone in the military. Honestly a must read for all Americans. A modern coat of paint on "War is a Racket".
Read
January 11, 2013Review of Terrorism and War By Howard Zinn
Review by Olivia McClure
On a topic as serious and intense as war and terrorism there will always be two opposite opinions on where to go or what to do with it. Should we have more security in airports? Should there be a more strict restraint on baring arms? Will we protect our country at all costs even if it means losing the trust of the world? In the end each country will speak for them self. If you bomb our land, we’ll invade yours. If you blow-up our airplane, we’ll go to war on your territory. It’s an eye for an eye, and it always has been. These are the topics Howard Zinn confronts in his non-fiction book, “Terrorism and War.” His vigorous discussion on the United States’ power and reasoning for war will open your eyes to the opposition of war.
Zinn uses a critical eye to examine the simplified and bare skeleton of war. “You go to war when you want to use violence to solve all your problems.” When you really break it down, war is just like two boys punching each other because one of them bumped their tray in the lunch line. Zinn describes the un-fair sequence of war, because no one really ever wins unless someone gives in. Someone has to be right or wrong, but what happens when both sides think they’re right? War. And if no one can ‘get ahead’, terrorism. Zinn knows that this is forced by the pride of your country. Patriotism makes all the difference, especially in the United States. Our government won’t hesitate to send troops to Iraq because we can, we’re American. The main point he makes is simplified to arrogance is bliss.
Zinn is not the most patriotic anti-war activist. His continuing main point is this, “If we want real security, we will have to change our posture to the world.” Zinn is all about the golden rule when it comes to solutions; if you give peace, you’ll get peace. He wants the US to be more trustworthy than anything. Zinn uses his syntax very persuasively. His dialogue and writing structure is straight-forward in this section of the book.
The part of the book I found most interesting was his historical insight on the US military. By page 57 you’ll see the growth of the “backstage” production in the US’s reaction to terrorism. He says that deception lies in the US government. He discusses the short, brief breaks the US has in wars between countries; like the short gap between the Cold War and World War ll. Or how in the earliest history of America we made the Indians get out of our way by force. This never gained us respect, just fear and enemies.
If there’s anything you take away about the author, it is that more than anything he wants peace. It’s obvious that the major point Zinn is trying to make is that the world would be better without wars, and the money used for it could be so much more useful somewhere else to further innovate the world, which has potential to be truly united. Over all I’d say this book well-written, and what I would consider an activist’s must-read.
Review by Olivia McClure
On a topic as serious and intense as war and terrorism there will always be two opposite opinions on where to go or what to do with it. Should we have more security in airports? Should there be a more strict restraint on baring arms? Will we protect our country at all costs even if it means losing the trust of the world? In the end each country will speak for them self. If you bomb our land, we’ll invade yours. If you blow-up our airplane, we’ll go to war on your territory. It’s an eye for an eye, and it always has been. These are the topics Howard Zinn confronts in his non-fiction book, “Terrorism and War.” His vigorous discussion on the United States’ power and reasoning for war will open your eyes to the opposition of war.
Zinn uses a critical eye to examine the simplified and bare skeleton of war. “You go to war when you want to use violence to solve all your problems.” When you really break it down, war is just like two boys punching each other because one of them bumped their tray in the lunch line. Zinn describes the un-fair sequence of war, because no one really ever wins unless someone gives in. Someone has to be right or wrong, but what happens when both sides think they’re right? War. And if no one can ‘get ahead’, terrorism. Zinn knows that this is forced by the pride of your country. Patriotism makes all the difference, especially in the United States. Our government won’t hesitate to send troops to Iraq because we can, we’re American. The main point he makes is simplified to arrogance is bliss.
Zinn is not the most patriotic anti-war activist. His continuing main point is this, “If we want real security, we will have to change our posture to the world.” Zinn is all about the golden rule when it comes to solutions; if you give peace, you’ll get peace. He wants the US to be more trustworthy than anything. Zinn uses his syntax very persuasively. His dialogue and writing structure is straight-forward in this section of the book.
The part of the book I found most interesting was his historical insight on the US military. By page 57 you’ll see the growth of the “backstage” production in the US’s reaction to terrorism. He says that deception lies in the US government. He discusses the short, brief breaks the US has in wars between countries; like the short gap between the Cold War and World War ll. Or how in the earliest history of America we made the Indians get out of our way by force. This never gained us respect, just fear and enemies.
If there’s anything you take away about the author, it is that more than anything he wants peace. It’s obvious that the major point Zinn is trying to make is that the world would be better without wars, and the money used for it could be so much more useful somewhere else to further innovate the world, which has potential to be truly united. Over all I’d say this book well-written, and what I would consider an activist’s must-read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews