New take on war on terror and nationhood

Submitted by handybob on Sun, 2008/04/13 - 07:13.

I found the NY Times review of Philip Bobbitt’s TERROR AND CONSENT more than just a little interesting. Bobbitt seems to offer a fresh look at the war on terror and international relations that challenges dogma on both the right and the left much in the same way that Thomas Friedman’s THE WORLD IS FLAT reframed the discussion of trade and economics.

Bookmark/Search this post with:
  • Delicious
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Propeller
  • Reddit
  • Magnoliacom
  • Newsvine
  • Furl
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • Yahoo

New take

Submitted by handybob on Wed, 2008/04/16 - 19:39.

I said I found it interesting. I didn’t mean to imply I wasn't at some times irritated. So many people just repeat the platitudes of the right or left that deviation from such is a breath of fresh air.

I agree that labeling anyone or any group a terrorist is an extreme act. I haven’t decided if it is ever warranted. I applaud Jimmy Carter’s willingness to maintain contact with Hamas, not because I admire Hamas, but because someone needs to offer them conversation and a cup of tea just to see if they remain open to civil contact. I understand the Bush administration’s hard line on Hamas. I don’t understand why a hard line is their only approach on this and so many other areas of concern.

I think that conversation and a cup of tea is a good place to start in regard to almost any concern. Do situations get beyond the point where talk and tea are sufficient? I haven’t the experience to fully answer that question.

I found the review irritating

Submitted by tarvid on Wed, 2008/04/16 - 08:32.

It suggests the War in Iraq, as the focal point of the War on Terror, was misdirected and ignoble. It was a colossal mistake.

Philip Bobbitt, like his uncle LBJ and more like John "One hundred years" McCain than Obama or Hillary, provides intellectual support for the "Long War" view of the 20th Century so eagerly adopted by the Neo-cons and the Bush Administration as the basis for the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism". In fairness to Mr. Bobbitt, he espouses the merits of "consitutional foundations" in contrast to the Bush view that they are obstacles..

To paraphrase Charles Babbage, "On two occasions I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Bobbitt, if you put into the machine wrong assumptions, will the right policies come out?'" to which Babbage replied "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

"Perpetual war" may be a consequence of Social Darwinism and/or Machiavllianism but to the man or woman who would do good, reject isolation and embrace integration. Start by rejecting the pejorative term "terrorist" and offer your perceived enemies open conversation and a cup of tea.