idea we hold about terrorism and its relationship to wars against terror is wrong, says Philip Bobbit. In his massive new book the military historian and political strategist applies himself to the terrorism threat of the 21st century. We are using outdated weapons and concepts, Bobbit says, and we need to consider that victory in the wars of the new century will be seen in the protection of human rights and in the enforcement of the rule of law, and in the creation of what he calls “states of consent” as opposed to “states of terror”. The idea that the threat comes from states is an anachronism from the wars of the last century. Today, he says: “Terrorism itself might become a threat to the legitimacy of those states that depend upon the consent of the governed.” Bobbit writes in cool, lapidary language, which only increases the force of what he says.
Page 16, 27th March 2009
27th March 2009
Page 16, 27th March 2009 — Terror and Consent by Philip Bobbit (Penguin, £7.99) Almost everyClose
Report an errorNoticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.
People: Philip Bobbit
Page 20 from 18th March 1988
Page 13 from 20th October 2006
Page 6 from 9th December 1977
Page 7 from 21st November 2008
Page 12 from 14th February 2003
Terror and Consent by Philip Bobbit (Penguin, £7.99) Almost every
Keywords: Terrorism, State Terrorism, Definition Of Terrorism, Consent Of The Governed, Politics, War / Conflict
blog comments powered by Disqus