Philip Bobbitt's Terror and Consent is a big book, enormous in concept, ambition, and sweep, full of portent for transnational politics in the twenty-first century. Portentousness in a book can be a good thing, provided it delivers as promised. This brilliant, polymathic book delivers more intellectual punch on the fraught relationship between state and society, terrorism and terrorists, than any book I know. Let me simply adopt Niall Ferguson's judgment, on the front page of the New York Times Book Review, calling Terror and Consent the "most profound book on the subject of American foreign policy since the attacks of 9/11 - indeed, since the end of the cold war."

Not everyone feels this way; one indicator of the book's intrinsic interest is the volatility of the reviews. The Economist was distinctly cool; Bobbitt's grand ambition, it said, "is confusing, hard to digest, and perhaps wrong." But a problem with much current analysis of terrorism, terrorists, and US responses is that it thinks small. No lack of windy tomes, true, but while much genuinely serious stuff is admirably analytic, breaking matters down into bits and pieces, it seemingly dares not synthesize the bits back into a whole again. Today's most serious efforts tend to avoid anything resembling grand strategy for winning a long-term struggle against terrorists and terrorist organizations, and the states that sponsor and shield them.

Favored instead is the narrowing method of cost benefit analysis and (adopting one version of it) a tendency to favor defensive, protective, immediate measures that are most obviously cost effective. Talk of "victory" or "winning," meanwhile, might be thought to propose talk of "war" - but these days few dare call it war, at least if one wants to remain respectable among Western policy, academic, and political elites. Governments shrink back, in fear of precisely the Muslim backlash their timidity invites, and increasingly cannot even bring themselves to identify the terrorists as Islamist, let alone Islamic. Terror and Consent, for its part, is heterodox on a long list of things. Bobbitt thinks the struggle against terrorism is plainly a war, to be called a war, fought as a war, against religiously-driven Islamist ideologues who seek to establish, he says, their vision of the caliphate and which he flatly calls "states of terror" that must be defeated. Nonetheless, changing conditions of twenty-first century war, because of changing conditions of the twenty-first century state, mean that war is not as it has long been.

Regnant approaches to terrorism are driven not just by narrow cost benefit analysis, but by a still narrower focus on something we might call "event-specific catastrophism": preventing the next attack. This is as true of the Bush administration as of its leading opponents. What has the Bush administration focused upon, in speech after speech to the public? The imminence of the next attack, and the need to prevent it. One hopes this is mobilizing rhetoric for larger policies against jihadist terrorism, but in considerable part, the uncertain next attack is the focus of policy - a long-term strategy, if one can call it that, even after seven years, of just trying to make it to the next day unscathed.

This is understandable, considering what administration officials see every day in threat assessments. The US attorney general since late 2007, Michael Mukasey, mused publicly how constant and serious the threats against the United States are; despite no successful homeland attacks since 9-11, he is "surprised by how surprised I am." Self-serving administration rhetoric? Perhaps. But despite much discursive rhetoric about long-term policy and the war on terror, much US policy is what, in a strategically informed plan, might well be considered the last defensive perimeters. Airport security, daily monitoring of cell phone traffic, internet analysis in hopes of seeing spikes that might indicate imminent terrorist action, watch lists, and many, many cement barriers. Presumably no one in Britain is reassured by the fact that the Glasgow attack was prevented not by perceptive police work, nimble intelligence agents, deep penetration of homegrown terrorist cells - but simply by a physical barrier at the airport. But perhaps people are comforted; the cement barrier worked, after all, effectively and cost-effectively, while the rest of the counterterrorism apparatus, at enormous absolute and relative cost, did not. Still, these are fundamentally defensive measures aimed at preventing the next attack, counterterrorism in a vital but stiflingly narrow sense. The cost benefit analysis underlying such planning, shaped toward event-specific catastrophism, is necessary and fruitful, but bears little resemblance to planning or conducting a "war" on terrorism or, really, any strategic conceptual response to jihad that goes beyond preventing particular events of uncertain probability and magnitude.

Terror and Consent, by contrast, offers strategic thinking on an unapologetically grand scale. There is nothing minimalist about it. It is synthetic across three large fields: history, law, and strategic international politics. In an age where academic specialization is supreme, Bobbitt's ability to move across fields is bound to annoy narrow disciplinarians - it will seem to some to be a very old-style grand explanation of the kind that academics gave up a couple of generations ago, and they will find particulars to quarrel over. Bobbitt is able not only to range across academic fields, but also to combine academic and real world experience - a Democrat by affiliation, he has served in senior positions in both law and intelligence in the Clinton and Bush senior administrations. Bobbitt understands political theory and he understands the practicalities of governing. Terror and Consent's core insight is that transnational jihadist terrorism must be understood on the largest historical scale, and that requires understanding the shifting nature of the state and society in both the liberal democratic West and the rest of the world. Sometimes nothing but the large historical scale will do. Why?

Jihadist transnational terrorism gets going by being able to exploit the interstices of the state system, not just on a geographical basis - the failed state of Afghanistan, for example - but on a historical basis, as the nature of the state moves from its incarnation in the twentieth century to something quite different in the twenty-first. Readers, in other words, should not be confused wondering why the book seems peculiarly focused on the historical and political theory of the evolving state, rather than narrowly on terrorism today. Bobbitt's deep point is that Al Qaeda terrorism, and what might eventually replace and transform it, cannot be understood without reference to the state system and its evolution over a long period of time. This leads Terror and Consent into a long walk through the history of the state in the West. Once again, narrow specialists will register many particular objections, and if one rejects in principle the notion of grand synthetic history, then one's reaction will be positively allergic. Bobbitt tells us, as a deliberate caricature, a kind of rough historical sketch (and picking up the thread of his earlier masterwork, Shield of Achilles), that the "princely state" system of Europe eventually gave way to the nation-state system that gradually emerged in the nineteenth and then dominated the twentieth century. Wars of the twentieth century were wars of Westphalian nation-states, and enemies in the wars of the twentieth century nation-states were themselves, by and large, nation-states; even the wars of de-colonialization were fought largely by parties that aspired to the status of nation-states.

Since the end of the Cold War, at least, however, liberal democratic nation-states - what Bobbitt calls "states of consent" - have been moving toward something different from the nation-state, something Bobbitt calls the "market-state." In the market-state, consent becomes less that of the citoyen and much more that of the consumer, for whom the state is a supplier of services. The market-state itself bears some resemblance to a corporation, outsourcing and privatizing significant activities, and is both more relaxed about its territorial sovereignty while at the same time willing to extend its regulatory reach beyond its borders. Globalization's increased wealth is one driver of the market-state, but so is the secular (in both senses of the term) drive of individuals toward greater individual liberty. "States of consent" contrast with "states of terror," the end aim of the transnational, nongovernmental and, today, Islamist terrorist groups that are also able to grow in the eco-system of economic globalization and the relaxed conditions of, and among, market-states. States of terror are the evil twin of the states of consent - parasitical upon and enabled by the states of consent, at once pre-modern and post-modern but never really modern, and irremediably hostile toward states of consent.

Bobbitt's market-states crucially retain key markers of states. This is not the dissolution of the state, the disaggregation of the state, eagerly awaited by watchful academics of international law, scanning the horizons for the breakdown of state sovereignty and the rise of some form of global governance and so to fulfill, after many heartbreaking centuries, the academicians' utopian, universal, planetary dreams. On the contrary, it is precisely because market-states continue, for Bobbitt, meaningfully to be states that they are able to have national interests, marshal resources against the states of terror, and provide for security for their citizens. And vice-versa. Indeed, in considerable part because Bobbitt insists on market-states as states, he likewise insists that the response to terrorism is a war on terror. Criminals, yes, but also enemies: states make war upon their enemies. War enables forms of strategic thinking about jihadist terror organizations that neither cost benefit analysis nor the legal conception of terrorists purely as criminals allows as a conceptual frame. The double-sided vision of Bobbitt's market-state leads Terror and Consent to a remarkably rich strategic vision of how concretely to make war against terror, terrorists, and violent jihad - a vision that will make everyone, however, on every side of the strategic debate, unhappy in some measure.

Law, including international law - the Geneva Conventions, for example - is crucial. The Bush administration's forays into nearly Schmittian arguments of permanent emergency displacing the rule of law have been as disastrous as they are wrong. On the other hand, while deeply respectful of international law, Bobbitt does not think it - its meaning, interpretation and evolution - lies in the hands of international law professors and international bureaucrats. Bobbitt is a committed multilateralist, not a purveyor of utopian supranationalism. His is a nuanced and practical international law regime gradually shaped by the practices of states as conditions shift - very much, in fact, the pragmatic view that the US State Department has held of international law over many generations. As to domestic law and terrorism, Terror and Consent is, for example, decisively against Alan Dershowitz's `special circumstance' arguments for torture and many other alterations to existing presumptions of the rule of law. Yet the constitution is no `suicide pact' for Bobbitt - he endorses preemptive detention for terrorist suspects, significant increases in electronic and other surveillance, and coercive techniques short of torture in some circumstances, among other things.

Terror and Consent sharply criticizes the Bush administration for the incompetence of its post-invasion Iraq policy. It observes that many mistakes arose from the profoundly erroneous belief that this was a war of nation-states in which the fall of the regime completed things whereas, in the wars of market-states and terrorist and insurgent groups, the war was just getting underway. Yet Bobbitt not only supported the Iraq war, he firmly believes (unlike many others following Iraq) in preventative war - he thinks we will need more of it over the long run, not less, because of the nature of terrorist threats. His strategic vision embraces carrying war to an enemy defined as such.

Each bit of this will discomfit someone. But the success of Terror and Consent as an argument depends largely on whether `market' and `state' can be corralled together as Bobbitt proposes or whether, instead, the categories eventually fly apart. In my estimation, the argument is highly persuasive; its success as policy in the real world, however, depends upon something different: whether the market-state partakes of more than simply the ethic of the market. The logic of the market, after all, is to write off the past as past, treat sunk costs as sunk, cut losses and get out as soon as cost benefit analysis says things are looking dim, look not sentimentally back to the past except as a source of future dividends, coolly calculate anticipated future flows of value, mark to market, and each and every day ask, "But what have you done for me lately?"

Is that really enough? If those are indeed the values that the market carries into the market state, is the market-state sufficiently nurtured by other values to have the will to defend itself as a political community? As consumers and not - in the older sense of the word, at least - citizens? Defend itself as a political community against not only external terrorist enemies, against states of terror, but also to have the courage to defend core internal values, not just of the market, but of liberal democracy - as against those, for example, who would see liberal democracy converted, in the name of multiculturalism, to a form of religious tribalism and religious communalism?

George W. Bush and Tony Blair have found it weirdly easier, after all, to send whole armies to fight in faraway places than ever to say no to demands of communalist, ultimately illiberal, Muslim groups at home; easier to fight wars abroad than to insist at home upon the liberal separation of church and state, mosque and state; insist upon a public sphere that is neutral as between varieties of religion but which insists on the independent values of a liberal society; insist that this means limits, firmly drawn and enforced, to today's tightening ratchet of one-way religious accommodations; and, finally, insist that these limits are integrally part of liberal toleration, a regime of liberal toleration that is a species utterly apart from fashionable and, for liberal values, fatal multiculturalism. Communalism is not liberalism; the religious communalism of the Ottoman Empire was, in its way and time, a relatively humane order, but it was not and never could be liberal. It is, however, the path of least resistance that Britain appears to be taking.

A believer in liberty and consent, I should greatly like to share Bobbitt's hopes for the market-state. It does not take a conservative to wonder, however, whether this is enough to sustain liberal democracy in the face of spiritual threats requiring a vision and courage to stick with it, rather than the cold, reactive calculus of net present value. A long tradition of what Lawrence Solum has called the "left Burkeans" - Christopher Lasch, for example, or Zygmunt Bauman - has argued that the market is as much socially corrosive of the values of liberal democracy as it is materially supportive. The market and liberal democracy are both sustained by wells of social capital that stable material prosperity helps deepen, but which are not the moral logic of the market itself.

The market of the market-state is not self-sustaining. On the contrary, it requires a form of social life that goes outside it in order to function in the long term. Honor, loyalty, sacrifice, courage, gratitude to those who came before - these are not the evident virtues of capitalism, but they are necessary virtues in a liberal-democratic-capitalist form of life. Without them, society eats its seed-corn, devours and uses up today the social capital bequeathed by the past to bless the future. Even after the marvelous argumentation of this marvelous book, therefore, room remains to question whether the market-state pays sufficient attention to the spiritual habits of the heart that make the market-state - and the willing defense of the market-state, states of consent as against states of terror - over the long struggle of years in this twenty-first century, even possible.

Bobbitt follows The Shield of Achilles with Terror and Consent : The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. The Shield of Achilles is a work for the ages; Terror and Consent is a work for our time, seen in the light of the ages.

In the previous book Bobbitt cast new light on the linkage between a State's ways of war and peace and its self-image and history. These evolve together according to a State's needs for survival and the challenges it faces. "The State is born in violence," writes Bobbitt, and the first things it must do are secure a monopoly on internal violence so that it may rule and secure a monopoly on external violence so that it may act strategically towards its ends. He traces the development, from Machiavelli's Italy to the present, of five successive forms of the State and shows that we are in the metamorphosis of a sixth form, the Market State.

In Terror and Consent, he shows that terrorism is also adapting. In each age, the "anti-state" has matched the State's ways and means, but chosen opposite ends. Now, in our heavily networked world, the same world that Thomas Barnett looks to for our salvation (The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century) the terrorists have found their place in the network. Bobbitt takes A. Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation enterprise as an example: Khan provided knowledge and expertise, found subcontractors for materials and equipment, and managed the entire affair for clients just the same way an outsourcing firm might build and manage a data center for a client. Bin Laden built al Qaeda with similiar capabilities, but with a military dimension: the parts have redundancies; they are less dependent on a single point that can be isolated, arrested, or blown up. And, in the age of the Market State, an entity such as Al Qaeda may reside entirely within the geography of other states, making it immune to the traditional tools of statecraft and warfare.

Dealing with these networks has proven difficult for our existing institutions and systems, and as the terrorists get smarter it the difficulties increase. This is a crisis with profound moral, legal, and strategic dimensions, and the dimensions interlock. Worse, we are hamstrung for want of a definition of terrorism that allows us to consider the three together. Bobbitt proposes a definition, then examines the nature and recent history of the problem and its likely solutions. He admits that there is something here to offend everybody, but reminds us that neither the enemy nor the government is the sole threat--real or potential--to our freedoms.

The title, Terror and Consent, refers to the conflict between States based on terror (internal and external) and States based on the consent of the governed and good faith relationship with other states. Bobbitt shows us that to survive in a world filled with geographic and virtual States of terror we must know how we and our enemies understand means and ends. We must change the relationship between Law and Strategy because our enemies attack each one through the other. We must change not just our processes but our entire understanding of the world.

Nor does Bobbitt offer easy solutions. His last full chapter, Triage of Terror, identifies three principle foreign policy goals and shows that they will provide us with a delicate balancing act, since every action we take towards one will probably compromise the other two to a greater or lesser extent. They will also leave us open to charges of inconsistancy in foreign policy and in the Wars against Terror, requiring government and the press to explain seriously what the choices are and what the priorities must be.

The good news is that the USA is uniquely suited to lead the change, and will make things immeasurably better if we do so. Uniquely suited, because we have driven the change to the Market State. Immeasurably better, because if we lead change in the rules instead of ignoring them we will free ourselves of much criticism and distrust. Modern limited sovereignty began with these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and we of the USA still understand it better than anyone else. Now we must understand how we have changed the world, and how we must change the implemention of our principles to match.

This is a deep and comprehensive analysis, not to be read in one evening or even two. Bobbitt achieves what von Clausewitz called critical analysis: he untangles the issues so that each part of the situation can be regarded on its own, and their interactions properly assessed. This is no small achievement; a clear analysis invites critics to advance it, refute it, or find other policies to recommend to answer the need.

In reading other reviews, I feel as if I did not read the same book. People react reflexively and Bobbitt admits that he brings something to upset everyone. Before you respond to your deepest fears, ask whether Bobbitt is calling into question your principles or the legal and strategic ways that we have protected those principles in the world of the past. Bobbitt also admits his party affiliation, which explains what I think unfair blame (in light of his last chapter) of people trying to make the best of a situation that, until now, no one has understood. But this is a dust mote on a great work.

Terror and Consent deserves careful reading by everyone serious about the threats posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, government-caused humanitarian crises (think Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and New Orleans) and the ability of functioning government to survive natural and artifical disaster. The problems won't go away by themselves; they will get worse as our enemies learn and adapt.

You may be sure our enemies will read Terror and Consent.

Bobbitt follows The Shield of Achilles with Terror and Consent : The Wars for the Twenty-First Century. The Shield of Achilles is a work for the ages; Terror and Consent is a work for our time, seen in the light of the ages.

In the previous book Bobbitt cast new light on the linkage between a State's ways of war and peace and its self-image and history. These evolve together according to a State's needs for survival and domestic tranquility. "The State is born in violence," writes Bobbitt, and the first things it must do is secure a monopoly on internal violence so that it may rule and secure a monopoly on external violence so that it may act strategically towards its ends. He traces the development, from Machiavelli's Italy to the present, of five successive forms of the State and shows that we are in the metamorphosis of a sixth form, the Market State.

In Terror and Consent, he shows that terrorism is also adapting. In each age, the "anti-state" has matched the State's ways and means, but chosen opposite ends. Now, in our heavily networked world, the same world that Thomas Barnett looks to for our salvation (The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century) the terrorists have found their place in the network. Bobbitt takes A. Q. Khan's nuclear proliferation enterprise as an example: Khan provided knowledge and expertise, found subcontractors for materials and equipment, and managed the entire affair for clients just the same way an outsourcing firm might build and manage a data center for a client. Bin Laden built al Qaeda with similiar capabilities, but with a military dimension: the parts have redundancies; they are less dependent on a single point that can be isolated, arrested, or blown up. And, in the age of the Market State, an entity such as Al Qaeda may reside entirely within the geography of other states, making it immune to the traditional tools of statecraft and warfare.

Dealing with these networks has proven difficult for our existing institutions and systems, and as the terrorists get smarter it the difficulties increase. This is a crisis with profound moral, legal, and strategic dimensions, and the dimensions interlock. Worse, we are hamstrung for want of a definition of terrorism that allows us to consider the three together. Bobbitt provides such a definition, then examines the nature and recent history of the problem and its likely solutions. He admits that there is something here to offend everybody, but reminds us that neither the enemy nor the government is the sole threat--real or potential--to our freedoms.

The title, Terror and Consent, refers to the conflict between States based on terror (internal and external) and States based on the consent of the governed and good faith relationship with other states. Bobbitt shows us that to survive in a world filled with geographic and virtual States of terror we must know how we and our enemies understand means and ends. We must change the relationship between Law and Strategy because our enemies attack each one through the other. We must change not just our processes but our entire understanding of the world.

Nor does Bobbitt offer easy solutions. His last full chapter, Triage of Terror, identifies three principle foreign policy goals and shows that they will provide us with a delicate balancing act, since every action we take towards one will probably compromise the other two to a greater or lesser extent. They will also leave us open to charges of inconsistancy in foreign policy and in the War on Terror, making it necessary for government and the press to explain seriously what the choices are and what the priorities must be.

The good news is that the USA is uniquely suited to lead the change, and will make things immeasurably better if we do so. Uniquely suited, because we have driven the change to the Market State. Immeasurably better, because if we lead change in the rules instead of ignoring them we will free ourselves of much criticism and distrust. Modern limited sovereignty began with these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and we of the USA still understand it better than anyone else. Now we must understand how we have changed the world, and how we must change the implemention of our principles to match.

In reading other reviews, I feel as if I did not read the same book. People react reflexively and Bobbitt admits that he brings something to upset everyone. Before you respond to your deepest fears, ask whether Bobbitt is calling into question your principles or the legal and strategic ways that we have protected those principles in the world of the past. Bobbitt also admits his party affiliation, which explains what I think is unfair blame (in light of his last chapter) of people trying to do make the best of a situation that, until now, nobody has understood. But this is a dust mote on a great work, and will become a historical curiosity.

This is a deep and comprehensive analysis, not to be read in one evening or even two. Bobbitt achieves what von Clausewitz called critical analysis: he untangles the issues so that each part of the situation can be regarded on its own, and their interactions properly assessed. This is no small achievement.

Terror and Consent deserves careful reading by everyone serious about the threats posed by terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, government-caused humanitarian crises (think Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and New Orleans) and the ability of functioning government to survive natural and artifical disaster. The problems won't go away by themselves; they will get worse as our enemies learn and adapt.

Since the time of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), the nation state has been viewed as a "sovereign entity," designed to protect and promote the general welfare of its citizens. Now, according to Philip Bobbitt, in the age of globalization, this sovereign entity is becoming increasingly "porous." As nation states integrate into the global economy, the constitutional foundations dedicated to protecting their rights and liberties are no longer adequate. The new entity that is emerging is what Bobbitt calls the "market state," a term he borrows from a previous work, The Shield of Achilles, in which he traced the evolution of the nation state.

This new market state Bobbitt describes is no longer confined to a sovereign territory, it is a decentralized and privatized network of relationships. It has all the characteristics of a multinational corporation and it treats its citizens much like a consumers. The market state has many upsides in that it presents its citizens with unprecedented freedoms and opportunities.

This book, however, is about the downside of the market state and the opportunities it provides terrorists. Today's terrorist networks are a byproduct of the market state, indeed they are an opportunistic parasite of the market state. They harness its technology and networks to wage war against it.

Bobbitt is not a neoconservative, he is a law professor who sees the need for a new constitutional order that reflects the needs of this new market state. Although he supported the war in Iraq, he now emphasizes the need for stronger international alliances and a "commitment to globalize the systems of human rights and government by consent." In other words, market states must collectively protect human rights and liberties.

On the counterterrorism side, Bobbitt calls for more invasive intelligence gathering, not only domestically but across national borders. Something along the lines of the Total Information Awareness program. He also calls for "preclusive" actions on the part of governments. Containment and deterrence are no longer adequate since terrorists now have access to weapons of mass destruction; they must be neutralized before they act. In short, terrorism must be fought more aggressively without undermining fundamental human rights and within the framework of international alliances.

This is a very well-researched and very well-argued work on how to fight terrorism in the 21st century. Bobbitt concludes that there is something in his proposals to offend everyone. Liberals will not like his call for preclusive actions by the governments and conservatives will not like his call to abide by some international standards. Achieving a so-called state of consent is already difficult in theory, it will be even more so in practice.

A great clarity on theses topics at a time of great confusion. Everyone who pretends to have an idea on terrorism, Bushism, etc.. should have read it!

Great book by a great mind. He may not have all the answers, but his analysis deserves to be viewed thoughtfully, not like these people giving it one star because he does not conform to their views. Thanks to an interview with Dennis Prager, I was turned on to this work.

terror and consent gives a powerful insight into 21st century global political strategy and how it is inextricably linked to terrorism war crime and the consent of the governed in determining the future of our world

In my continuing research, Philip Bobbitt has been able to put into words what will be the greatest constitutional test the United States and countries of the world will be facing in the near future. Pay attention, folks, this is the new world! The fall of the nation-state and it's replacement, the market-state will see our concepts of liberty turned upside down.

There is a lot of geopolitical and economic repositioning activity in the world today. This book provides some clarity as to just what is going on. It is eye-opening to be sure.

The bigger picture is one where The Long War from 1914 to 1991 including The Cold War has ended, where countries operating as Nation States are now moving toward Market States, where nuclear capability is within reach to any nation, where governments are extricating themselves of the services they once provided to the people who elected them, and where the threat of terrorism is a way of life. This is not the ranting of sensationalist left or right wing politics but the reality of the world we live in. I didn't think the author was advocating what he wrote as a preferable way of life and one we should all embrace.

Philip Bobbitt has written a scholarly book so full of information, yet readable so that even a lay person like myself can follow it. I really liked the internet links he has inserted in the text to documents he references.

This book is absorbing and pertinent and I very highly recommend it.

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.

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.

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 ignore negative votes, but 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.

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.

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 the future generation and a win-win for all. I am sick of this.

----------------

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.

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

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-immocation as a Nation.

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.

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

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-immocation as a Nation.

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.

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.

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.

The work is sophisticated and explores, among other things, how strategy must align with the rule of law if our policies on terror are to succeed. This is a good read and well ahead of the proverbial curve. You will see the themes of this book, again and again, in the popular literature on terrorism. Enjoy!

In the first page, Professor Bobbitt introduces a broad definition of terror which includes the socially debilitating effects of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, as well as man-made disasters, including terrorism and human rights violations. This is both an accurate and elegant definition - it encompasses things that diminish the human condition; and it is a practical definition in an age of transnational threats where multi-lateral action is a necessity. "We are fighting terror, not just terrorists." I like that.

Yet how does a state effectively and legitimately pursue such policies and enact such cooperation? This question inevitably raises strategic and constitutional issues.

Professor Bobbitt's approach compels a reexamination of strategy, which includes how we organize our resources and conceptualize intervention - peaceful or otherwise - in the highly complex and uncertain environment of the 21st century. And here he makes the case that the alignment of strategy with law is absolutely essential. Our response to terror must be from the legal high ground; which, one hopes, also corresponds to the moral high ground.

I especially liked his detailed discussion of bio-terrorism and the detailed rebuttal to the International Institute for Strategic Studies Adelphi Paper - Nuclear Terrorism After 9/11. This, in conjunction with the background surrounding the A. H. Khan nuclear proliferation network, drives home the importance of a sound and multi-dimensional response to the proliferation of WMDs. Bobbitt draws on the likes of Brian Jenkins, Mary Kaldor, and Sir Michael Howard to both sustain his points and provoke argument. This is good stuff!

I have touched on one element in this brief review. There are numerous theoretical forays in this book that is rich with historical detail and anecdote, as well as legal and policy theory...much more than can be adequately summarized in a few paragraphs.

One should never judge a book by its cover; however, one can judge the credibility of the message and that of its author by looking at the citations in the back of the book. Professor Bobbitt is meticulous. There are over 100 pages of detailed footnotes; and in the text, there are often 5 or 6 citations per page! This detail is invaluable in providing a deeper and more contextually rich background to the text. Compare this level of professionalism with some of the popular literature on terrorism that, if the author is an especially generous mood, has 12 or so footnotes per Chapter.

Professor Bobbitt is "the best of the best." His work demonstrates an intellectual tradition the hallmark of which is well reasoned argument supported by detailed references and intellectual rigor. Why would you settle for anything less?

This is an intellectually sophisticated work that explores, among other things, how strategy must align with the rule of law if our policies on terror are to succeed.

In the first page, Professor Bobbitt introduces a broad definition of terror which includes the socially debilitating effects of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, as well as man-made disasters, including terrorism and human rights violations. This is both an accurate and elegant definition - it encompasses things that diminish the human condition; and it is a practical definition in an age of transnational threats where multi-lateral action is a necessity. "We are fighting terror, not just terrorists." I like that.

Yet how does a state effectively and legitimately pursue such policies and enact such cooperation? This question inevitably raises strategic and constitutional issues.

Professor Bobbitt's theory compels a reexamination of strategy, which includes how we organize our resources and conceptualize intervention - peaceful or otherwise - in the highly complex and uncertain environment of the 21st century. And here he makes the case that the alignment of strategy with law is absolutely essential. Our response to terror must be from the legal high ground; which, one hopes, also corresponds to the moral high ground.

I have touched on one element in this brief review. There are numerous theoretical forays in this book that is rich with historical detail and anecdote, as well as legal and policy theory...much more than can be adequately summarized in a few paragraphs.

One should never judge a book by its cover; however, one can judge the credibility of the message and that of its author by looking at the citations in the back of the book. Professor Bobbitt is meticulous. There are over 100 pages of detailed footnotes; and in the text, there are often 5 or 6 citations per page! This detail is invaluable in providing a deeper and more contextually rich background to the text. Compare this level of professionalism with some of the popular literature on terrorism that, if the author is an especially generous mood, has 12 or so footnotes per Chapter.

Professor Bobbitt is "the best of the best." His work demonstrates an intellectual tradition the hallmark of which is well reasoned argument supported by detailed references and intellectual rigor. Why would you settle for anything less?

In 2002 Philip Bobbitt authored "The Shield of Achilles." He has now come out with a 688 page work that claims that thinking on war and peace must change in light of the war on terrorism.

He separates the thinking into terror and consent. He does not close the case in this book. The jury is still out.


Author of: Mr. NewHeart (New Heart): Heart Attack to Transplant and Beyond

Bobbitt graciously sent me a pre-production copy of this book. Unfortunately, the book is a complex and legalistic edifice based on several flawed assumptions.

To save you the time required to read it. Here's a synopsis.

The premise of the book is that we are in the midst of a transition to a market-based global order. This means that the nation-state (and even the entire notion of public governance) will be replaced by corporate surrogates (via outsourcing) operating on a global level. The basis for the legitimacy of this new order will be that it offers individuals more choices than ever before (the political parallel to a fully stocked supermarket). However, its emergence will be at the expense of minimal safety nets and communitarian efforts.

The enemy of this newly emerging market-based system, and the main focus of this book, are (naturally) terrorists. Terrorists, Bobbitt claims, fight us because they hate the choices provided to us by this emerging market-world.

The way they fight us is by limiting our choices through terror. Terror, in this context, is essentially theater. In this theater, disgruntled people (Islamic terrorists and beyond) will use the threat of flamboyant attacks to limit the choices offered by the market-world. Since the market-state will continue to produce ever greater levels of choice to an ever greater number of people, this clash is inevitable. Therefore, our societal objective is to harden ourselves (through smart legal maneuvers and investments in infrastructure) to limit the the levels of terror that can be produced by our opponents. By doing this, we can buy time as the market-world continues to expand to ever greater numbers of people.

_________________________

I was hopeful that Bobbitt would approach terrorism in a more nuanced way than merely through the lens of the prevailing narrative fallacy (for example: "The Looming Tower"). Unfortunately, he didn't and his depiction of terrorism is merely as a means for disgruntled groups to negate choice (a variant of Bush's "they hate us for our freedoms").

A more complex and realistic view of terrorism is to approach it as illegal warfare directed against civilians. This warfare also has more complex objectives that merely limiting choices through the production of terror. In many cases, it advances the groups that conduct it economically, socially, etc. (usually at the expense of state competitors). For example: Nigeria's MEND, Brazil's PCC, Mexico's Cartels/Zetas, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Colombia's FARC, Peru's Sendero Luminoso and most of the groups in Iraq/Afghanistan (who advance through smuggling/corruption/etc.). Unfortunately, Bobbitt didn't deviate from the simplistic view of terrorism and his book suffers mightily from the result.

I also have a problem with the market-state and market-world construct. First, it's vague. Second, it is potentially ruinous. While choices may be available, it says nothing of your ability (your means) to exercise those choices. Who cares if the supermarket offers unlimited choice if you can't afford anything but the generics? It's very likely a market-state would reduce human worth to a mere economic value at the cost of the bonds that hold us together as a community. Perversely, this would serve to create the very violent groups that use terrorism to advance their own economic/social level, since no other values have any power to mitigate/dissuade an impulse to violence. In short, Bobbitt's market-state, a society legitimized by "choice" alone, is insufficiently credible as something we should a) help emerge and b) defend.

Hope this helps.

John Robb, author of:
Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization

Bobbitt graciously sent me a pre-production copy of this book. Unfortunately, the book is a complex and legalistic edifice based on several flawed assumptions.

To save you the time required to read it. Here's a synopsis.

The premise of the book is that we are in the midst of a transition to a market-based global order. This means that the nation-state (and even the entire notion of public governance) will be replaced by corporate surrogates (via outsourcing) operating on a global level. The basis for the legitimacy of this new order will be that it offers individuals more choices than ever before (the political parallel to a fully stocked supermarket). However, its emergence will be at the expense of minimal safety nets and communitarian efforts.

The enemy of this newly emerging market-based system, and the main focus of this book, are (naturally) terrorists. Terrorists, Bobbitt claims, fight us because they hate the choices provided to us by this emerging market-world.

The way they fight us is by limiting our choices through terror. Terror, in this context, is essentially theater. In this theater, disgruntled people (Islamic terrorists and beyond) will use terror to limit the choices offered by the market-world. This clash is inevitable and won't go away. Therefore, our objective is to harden our society (through smart legal maneuvers and investments in infrastructure) to limit the the levels of terror that can be produced. By doing this, we can buy time as the market-world continues to expand to ever greater numbers of people.

_________________________

Here are the assumptions that undermine the book's argument:

1) Bobbitt claims that terrorism is merely the negation of choice. This is a variant of "they hate us for our freedoms." It's clearly a shallow reading of the facts. Actually, the vast majority of small groups currently using terrorism as a method of warfare aren't using it to limit choices. Instead, they are using it to promote the economic well being of their own groups (usually at the expense of state competitors). We can see this with Nigeria's MEND, Brazil's PCC, Mexico's Cartels/Zetas, Lebanon's Hezbollah, Colombia's FARC, Peru's Sendero Luminosa and most of the groups in Iraq/Afghanistan (who advance through smuggling/corruption/etc.). Very few are actually focused on negation of choice in the West (in fact, these groups benefit from the fact we chose to consume drugs, engage in human trafficking, gobble up knock offs, etc.).

2) Terrorism -- a poor word for illegal warfare directed against civilians -- isn't theater. Further, "terror" isn't the only objective of terrorism (despite what the name belies). As a result, a war against "terror" is completely useless as a call to arms.

3) Bobbitt contends that the emergence of a market-state and a market-world is good. I disagree. The privatopia that he envisions is potentially ruinous. The reduction of human worth to a mere economic value destroys the bonds that hold us together as a community. Further, it actually serves to create the very groups that use terrorism to advance their own economic worth, since no other values have any power to mitigate an impulse to violence.

Hope this helps.

John Robb, author of:
Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization