Terror and Consent or If Democrats Had Any Brains Theyd Be Republicans

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

Author: Philip Bobbitt

An urgent reconceptualization of the Wars on Terror from the author of The Shield of Achilles (“magisterial”— The New York Times, “a classic for future generations”—The New York Review of Books). In this book Philip Bobbitt brings together historical, legal, and strategic analyses to understand the idea of a “war on terror.” Does it make sense? What are its historical antecedents? How would such a war be “won”? What are the appropriate doctrines of constitutional and international law for democracies in such a struggle?

He provocatively declares that the United States is the chief cause of global networked terrorism because of overwhelming American strategic dominance. This is not a matter for blame, he insists, but grounds for reflection on basic issues. We have defined the problem of winning the fight against terror in a way that makes the situation virtually impossible to resolve. We need to change our ideas about terrorism, war, and even victory itself.

Bobbitt argues that the United States has ignored the role of law in devising its strategy, with fateful consequences, and has failed to reform law in light of the changed strategic context. Along the way he introduces new ideas and concepts—Parmenides’ Fallacy, the Connectivity Paradox, the market state, and the function of terror as a by-product of globalization—to help us prepare for what may be a decades-long conflict of which the battle against al Qaeda is only the first instance.

At stake is whether we can maintain states of consent in the twenty-first century or whether the dominant constitutional orderwill be that of states of terror. Challenging, provocative, and insightful, Terror and Consent addresses the deepest themes of governance, liberty, and violence. It will change the way we think about confronting terror—and it will change the way we evaluate public policies in that struggle.

The New York Times - Edward Rothstein

…powerful, dense and brilliant…there is so much to think about in this book that the disagreements it inspires are part of its value.

The New York Times Book Review - Niall Ferguson

This is quite simply the most profound book to have been written on the subject of American foreign policy since the attacks of 9/11—indeed, since the end of the cold war. I have no doubt it will be garlanded with prizes. It deserves to be. It is more important that it should be read, marked and inwardly digested by all three of the remaining candidates to succeed George W. Bush as president of the United States.

The Washington Post - Daniel Byman

My advice is that readers should approach Terror and Consent with a mixture of caution and open-mindedness. Not all of Bobbitt's pronouncements may be convincing. But his book constantly prods us to reexamine our preconceptions about terrorism, which is by itself some preparation for what may lie ahead.

Publishers Weekly

Bobbitt follows his magisterial Shield of Achilleswith an equally complex and provocative analysis of the West's ongoing struggle against terrorism. According to Bobbitt, the primary "driver" of terrorism is not Islam but the emergence of the market state. "Market states" (such as the U.S.) are characterized by their emphasis on deregulation, privatization (of prisons, pensions, armies), abdication of typical nation-state duties (providing welfare or health care) and adoption of corporate models of "operational effectiveness." While market states are too militarily formidable to be challenged conventionally, they have allowed for the sale of weapons on the international market, thereby losing their monopoly on mass destruction; furthermore they are disproportionately vulnerable to "destabilizing, delegitimating, demoralizing" terror. Bobbitt asserts that this situation requires a shift from a strategy of deterrence and containment to one of preclusion. States must recast concepts of sovereignty and legitimacy to define what levels of force they may deploy in seeking and suppressing terrorists. Domestically, the shift involves accepting that in order to protect citizens, the state must strengthen its powers in sensitive areas like surveillance. International alliances can be a major advantage in a war waged not against terrorists, but terror itself. Terror and Consent, the first work to interpret terrorism in the context of political theory, merits wide circulation and serious consideration. (Apr.)

Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Kirkus Reviews

A distinguished scholar proposes an entirely new way of understanding and combating modern terrorism. With the startling statement that "almost every widely held idea we currently entertain about twenty-first century terrorism and its relationship to the Wars against Terror is wrong and must be thoroughly rethought," Bobbitt (Law/Columbia Univ.; The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History, 2002, etc.) reframes the discussion, placing terrorism in a historical, strategic and legal context. Building on the premises of his previous work and drawing on a staggeringly wide array of authorities, he argues that with the emergence of the globalized market state, we can expect terror groups to become every bit as worldwide, networked and decentralized as the states themselves. In this sense, the market states have "caused" terrorism or, at least, forced it to assume its modern face. With access to lethal weapons and state-of-the-art communications, future terrorists will make al-Qaeda memorable only as a crude pioneer. To meet this security threat, writes the author, states that depend on the consent of the governed must radically recalibrate their strategies and laws. Bobbitt's prescriptions for preventing terrorism and the proliferation of WMDs, for intervening to prevent genocide or ethnic cleansing, and for mitigating the human-rights consequences of natural catastrophes will likely prove controversial. There are many who will disagree with his arguments, including those unconverted to his belief in the waning of the nation-state, those who insist that the target is confined to radical Islam, and those who resist the idea that we are in a proper war and recoil at the prospectof any diminution of our civil rights to fight it. But this is a serious book, and, notwithstanding his impressive theoretical reach and philosophical scope, Bobbitt keeps his feet on the ground, boldly offering detailed real-world proposals to combat the problems he outlines. To learn, for example, that our safety may require the repeal of statutes passed in the wake of the Civil War-specifically, the Posse Comitatus Act-is to glimpse the shaky state of our preparedness for this new conflict. A challenge for the general reader but a feast for students of law, foreign policy and international relations.

Table of Contents:

Introduction: Plagues in the Time of Feast     3
The Idea of a War Against Terror
The New Masque of Terrorism     23
The Market State: Arming Terror     85
Warfare Against Civilians     125
Victory Without Parades     180
Law and Strategy in the Domestic Theater of Terror
The Constitutional Relationship Between Rights and Powers     241
Intelligence, Information, and Knowledge     289
The Strategic Relationship Between Ends and Means     350
Terrorism: Supply and Demand     397
Strategy and Law in the International Theater of Terror
The Illusion of an American Strategic Doctrine     429
Mise-en-Scene: The Properties of Sovereignty     452
Danse Macabre: Global Governance and Legitimacy     484
The Triage of Terror     511
Conclusion: A Plague Treatise for the Twenty-first Century     521
Coda     547
Acknowledgments     549
Notes     553
Selected Bibliography     647
Annotated Index     663

Go to:

If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans

Author: Ann Coulter

“Uttering lines that send liberals into paroxysms of rage, otherwise known as ‘citing facts,’ is the spice of life. When I see the hot spittle flying from their mouths and the veins bulging and pulsing above their eyes, well, that’s when I feel truly alive.”

So begins If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, Ann Coulter’s funniest, most devastating, and, yes, most outrageous book to date.

Coulter has become the brightest star in the conservative firmament thanks to her razor-sharp reasoning and biting wit. Of course, practically any time she opens her mouth, liberal elites denounce Ann, insisting that “She’s gone too far!” and hopefully predicting that this time it will bring a crashing end to her career.

Now you can read all the quotes that have so outraged her enemies and so delighted her legions of fans. More than just the definitive collection of Coulterisms, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans includes dozens of brand-new commentaries written by Coulter and hundreds of never-before-published quotations. This is Ann at her best, covering every topic from A to Z. Here you’ll read Coulter’s take on:

• Her politics: “As far as I’m concerned, I’m a middle-of-the-road moderate and the rest of you are crazy.”
• Hillary Clinton: “Hillary wants to be the first woman president, which would also make her the first woman in a Clinton administration to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office instead of under it.”
• The environment: “God gave us the earth. Wehave dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”
• Religion: “It’s become increasingly difficult to distinguish the pronouncements of the Episcopal Church from the latest Madonna video.”
• Global warming: “The temperature of the planet has increased about one degree Fahrenheit in the last century. So imagine a summer afternoon when it’s 63 degrees and the next thing you know it’s . . . 64 degrees. Ahhhh!!!! Run for your lives, everybody! Women and children first!”
• Gun control: “Mass murderers apparently can’t read, since they are constantly shooting up ‘gun-free zones.’”
• Bill Clinton: “Bill Clinton’s library is the first one to ever feature an Adults Only section.”
• Illegal aliens: “I am the illegal alien of commentary. I will do the jokes that no one else will do.”

If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans is a must-have for anyone who loves (or loves to hate) Ann Coulter.