Customer Reviews

Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American Power In a Violent World

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

I may well be one of the last people who should be giving this book 5 stars. First, I'm a libertarian whose generally skeptical of military action. Second, as this book is largely about just war theory in the christian tradition, it should be noted that I am a non-beleiver. This book, though, is a rarity. It is well argued, is assertive yet cautious, and unlike so many others on both sides of the issue, does not degenerate into an empty rhetorical minefield.

What the book is about is using just war theory, a system in christian ethical philosophy that aims at deciphering moral from immoral war, and applying this theory to the war on terror. The question: Why do we fight? The answer: Because if we didn't, either we or many innocents in the middle-east would experience far worse brutality than we would by intervening now. Again, while I'm skeptical of military intervention unless for the most extraordinary reasons, this book has gone far in forcing me to reconsider why we are doing what we are doing. Contrary to much propoganda, we are in fact conducting ourselves fairly, judiciously, and cautiously.

In fact, one of the most noticable things she does is to contrast the way radical islam (and she carefully contrasts this with Islam) conducts itself with the way we conduct ourselves. It is night and day. Terrorism kills indiscriminately: if you are western, you die. We are judicious and discriminate if we must kill: We kill terrorists and do everything possible to ensure that civilians live. Radical islam does not 'talk it over' before killing. We do - even if the left feels stifled when voicing opinion, they may still do so and sometimes to great effect. We use force via an organized army and recognize international statutes of war ethics. Radical islam does not. The differences go on and on.

While I remain unconvinced of the Iraq war (which this book does not address as it was written previous to it) Mrs. Elshtain's arguments on the moral reasons for us to engage in the war on terror are thoughtful, intellegent (not hot-air rhetoric like, say, Sean Hannity) and extremely insightful. It has forced me to re-examine my (former?) positioin and it may do the same for you.

In 1998 Osama bin Laden declared war against America, denouncing US occupation of the lands of Islam in the Arabian Peninsular and the Muslim obligation to kill and plunder pagans. In the west we find it difficult to accept such language at face value but bin Laden and his followers mean it when they call westerners 'infidels'. Bin Laden and his followers also mean it when they talk of an obligation to kill as a recruitment video shown in a Finsbury, North London mosque shows disarmed enemies being decapitated with the commentary "You have to kill in the name of Allah until you are killed. Then you will win your place in paradise. The whole Islamic world should rise up to fight all the sick unbelievers. The flag of Jihad will be forever held high. Our enemies are fighting in the name of Satan. You are fighting in the name of God." Radical Islamists want to impose their official religion, through terror if necessary. The message that Jean Bethke Elshtain wants us to understand is that in bin Laden and his followers we face a new kind of enemy; that those who live in freedom must sometimes fight for the right to live in freedom; that with America's great power comes even greater responsibility; that we must fight - not to conquer - but to defend who and what we are.

The Pope's response to September 11 may be summed up in these words: "When terrorist organizations use their own followers as weapons to be launched against defenseless and unsuspecting people, they show clearly the death wish that feeds them. Terrorism springs from hatred, and it generates isolation, mistrust and closure ... Terrorism is built on contempt for human life. For this reason, not only does it commit intolerable crimes, but because it resorts to terror as a political and military means it is itself a true crime against humanity."

Martyrs die for a religious belief or cause and to claim that a martyr can be a suicide bomber or mass murderer is a corruption of the word. Terrorists are those who kill people they consider their enemy; terrorists sow terror; terror subjects its would be victims to paralyzing fear; terrorists are not interested in the subtleties of diplomacy or in compromise solutions. Terrorism is extremist and Islamist fundamentalism is extreme. The Western politics of negotiation and compromise do not work with terrorism. President Bush distinguished carefully between Islam as a great religion and terrorists who are in effect trying to highjack Islam itself. Islam is as fractured as Christianity and there seems to be no spokesman who speaks in the name of Islam. Who governs in the name of Islam? We hear continually the voice of the Islam extremists but seldom hear the voice of those who truly represent Islam.

How do you respond to those who have declared you a mortal enemy because you hold radically different views on constitutional rights, moral equality, separation of church and state, and equality of sexes? There is a great deal at stake in the current struggle, and there are values worth defending. But how we choose to defend these values is all-important, for in fighting terror that knows no limits, there are limits we ourselves must observe. That is what this book is all about - seeking the correct response to our terrorist enemy. The overwhelming reaction to September 11 was to speak of justice and that is what the author proposes - justice as represented by a blindfolded figure holding balanced scales.

Elshtain draws on Augustine to define the principles, but refers to Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr, who confronted political evil in the World War II era, to define the practice of confronting the enemy. Tillich broadcast 112 addresses into occupied Europe to help German Christians understand what the Third Reich was doing, saying that Germans had to stand against the terror and confront the Jewish question; he was clear that terror had to be fought but without hatred. Niebuhr maintained that the world must be engaged; Christians must understand that their own freedom is entangled with political realities. One cannot withdraw from responsibility by refusing to confront the inevitable moral ambiguities of politics. In his essays "Love your Enemies" and "To Prevent the Triumph of an Intolerable Tyranny" Niebuhr makes the case for struggling against a determined foe intent on our harm and destruction without hating that foe.

If you would like to learn what bin Laden and his followers are trying to do to the West and if you suspect that justice is the only valid weapon we can use to combat terrorism this is an excellent book to study.

Just War Against Terror is a brilliant book. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I have been shocked by the Left's response to the slaughter of more than 3,000 innocent people. Apparently, Prof. Elshtain, no right-winger by any means (read Democracy or Trial or Jane Adams and the Dream of American Democracy), is also appalled. So she wrote a book in which she courageously challenges the dogmatic anti-Americanism of her fellow academics and other members of the Left. Using honest, fact-based reasoning, Prof. Elshtain shows how the Left ignores or distorts facts and uses evasive language and flawed analogies to avoid the work of actually reasoning (among other false practices). It is a great pleasure to see the steamroller of Prof. Elshtain's logical arguments utterly flatten the accepted orthodoxies of the Left.

More importantly, however, Prof. Elshtain provides a logical/moral framework, in plain, accessible language, for analyzing whether the use of force is just. She uses this framework to assess the justness of the US response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Although she ultimately determines that the US acted justly in Afghanistan, using her analytical framework does not require that you reach the same conclusions that she reached. She is not trying to channel the debate but rather broaden it by injecting honest analysis.

As the debate that began on September 11, 2001, continues, this book will become extremely important as it helps to shape that debate because of the power of its logic and honesty. READ this book. Whether you agree or disagree with its conclusions, you will find yourself better equipped to evaluate the arguments raised by all sides.

Unlike knee-jerk books from the left or the right, Elshtain's closely argued book adds clarity and depth (plus context) to arguments about fighting terrorism. Although the piece is a bit heavy on some of the Christian theology, philosphy points, it is not offputting in that regard, and the historical points re the Crusades (and the slaughter/oppression of Christian's by Muslims under the Sword of Islam in the run up to the Crusades) provides an essential reminder for those who start their historical analysis of terrorism in 1200. The argument about the role of America in sober and inspiring. This is a really fine contribution that is well written and a pleasure to read.

This volume very nicely brings together four broad themes into one focused discussion. The nature of radical Islam, the threat of terrorism, the doctrine of just war, and the place of American power in a turbulent world are the major issues treated. University of Chicago professor of social and political ethics Jean Bethke Elsthain is well suited to this task.

She deftly merges the various streams of philosophy, theology, ethics, politics and international relations into a coherent account of how the US in particular and the West in general should proceed after September 11. She reminds us that appeasing terrorism is not the answer, yet we need to deal with the threat of militant Islam in a way that does not violate our own ethical codes and political ideals.

As such, this book has a bearing on recent events which were unknown at the time of writing, notably the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandals. How can democratic nations defend both their values and their borders against an enemy that does not play by the rules, and is happy to use the freedoms associated with democracy in its attempts to destroy it? How can we uphold ethical standards and at the same time weed out those committed to undermining our way of life?

How can democratic nations respond to terror without resorting to terror? Indeed, can moral distinctions be made in this regard? Is all killing and the use of force evil, or is it sometimes justified? Should we accept the argument of moral equivalence which states that American use of force is just as bad as Muslim terrorism? And, as some assert, did America bring September 11 upon itself?

These and other questions are expertly addressed in this incisive work. An overriding theme of the volume is that America has a moral and civil obligation to withstand those who seek to destroy it. American has the right to defend freedom and the ideals and values that make America a beacon for many around the world.

Indeed, the author is also one of sixty signatories of "What We're Fighting For," which is included as an appendix to this book. This document explores some of these core values and the right of a democratic nation to celebrate those values as well as defend them, when necessary.

Segments of this volume examine the political realism of Tillich and Niebuhr, and lay out the doctrine of just war as elaborated by Augustine, Aquinas and others. Augustine said that tranquillitas ordinis, or ordinary civic peace, was the primary responsibility which a government must provide. Without secure civic order, none of the basic human goods that people aspire to can flourish.

Thus a just government will protect its people from internal anarchy and outward threats. And one of the greatest outward threats that Western nations face today comes from terrorists and fanatics, often associated with Islamic extremism. What happened on September 11 2001 was not the first of such assaults, but it was the most glaring and horrific. September 11 put the world on notice that there is a clash of civilisations underway, as Samuel Huntington has phrased it.

Those nations that value human dignity, religious freedom, and democratic polity are pitted against those who hate such values and want them eliminated altogether. The Osama bin Ladens of the world do not just want Western nations to withdraw to a small part of the globe, but they want them exterminated. We need to take the words of these fanatics at face value. When they say they hate what we represent and want to see us overrun by the rule of a theocratic Islam, they mean it. They have openly proclaimed that they are involved in holy war, and that their cause is right.

As such, free nations have a moral and civil obligation to withstand these terrorists and prevent them from implementing their agenda. It is neither Christian nor responsible to appease such opponents, nor seek to pretend that such threats do not exist. Loving your neighbour includes protecting them from harm and maintaining their dignity as human beings. Terrorists do not respect the democratic ideals nor the Christian virtues. Therefore a just war against terrorism is in order, and one does not have to have grave moral misgivings about it. To withstand the enemies of freedom and democracy is both a right and an obligation.

The author is to be commended for reminding us of these truths, because too many Western apologists for terrorism and radical Islam are at work seeking to convince us otherwise. At a time of ethical uncertainty, the need for moral clarity is all the more urgent, and this book is a clarion call to remind ourselves of what it is that we value and why. It deserves a wide and considered reading.

Flash back 2000 years. This time, instead of finding a victim robbed and beaten on the side of the road, the Good Samaritan happens along while the robbery is taking place. What should he do? This is the problem -- the unique moral responsibilty of a country powerful enough to inflict violence on terrorists in proportion to the violence they inflict on the innocent -- that Elshtain addresses in this book.

Elshtain argues that we face a new political reality after 9/11. Terrorism reaches its objectives through violence against civilian non-combatants. She applies just war theory to argue that in such circumstances, nonviolence may be the immoral response. Christian charity may require that we act with force to defend innocent third parties even if we reject self-defense as immoral.

Is this a new idea? Consider any of the many popular films in which the villain, knowing that the hero would willingly sacrifice his own life, instead points his gun at the hero's wife, child or friend to force him to cooperate. National Lampoon once ran a cover that said "Buy this magazine or we'll kill this dog." Elshtain's book gives us a rigorous intellectual framework to justify our gut response to these situations.

As to more conventional interventions, such as in Iraq, Elshtain argues that when a government is unable or unwilling to satisfy the first responsibility of any state anywhere -- to uphold justice -- then other governments may be justified in stepping in to restore, at a minimum, justice based on the rule of law. A new paradigm, perhaps, and potentially a slippery slope, but the new world after 9/11 requires that we learn to walk that slope without losing our balance.

I.e., she's honest and responsible. Her argument reflects it, too. It'd be helpful to have some understanding of just war doctrine before reading this book, but that's no great hurdle, because you can pick up the basics of just war theory, from a lot of different sources, in about an hour or so. But even without that, you'll get whole lot of value out of this for such a brief book. Her arguments are cogent and accessible, and at the same time they plumb centuries of moral thought to put our current war against terrorism into historical and moral context. If you know why you want to win the war on terrorism, and now you want stronger answers as to how and why we SHOULD fight it, this is the book for you.

Seriously, if you're on the fence, spend the twenty bucks. It'll be more than worth it.

It is great to see and read an author with the courage to describe terrorism as it really exists and is perpetrated by the Muslim world. Too many Muslims are apologists for jihad and tend to blame the victims. The real problems are the Muslim lack of tolerance for other religions, hatred of freedom of religion and a desire to conqueror the world for Islam.

This is an excellent and accessible account of Just War as it relates to the War on Terror - primarily in Afghanistan. Should be read even by those unfamiliar with Just War for the clarity it brings to the discussion about American foreign policy and Islamofacism. A previous reviewer who claimed JBE is in need of more training "in law and morals" is not familiar with her work in the least. She is one of America's leading public intellectuals, and this work will show you why.

This book analyzes the role the United States has taken in certain situations where terror was a profound factor, internationally and nationally. It explains the strengths and weaknesses of the reaction of the government, and the logical steps which resulted in the reactions of the government and why they are so. It is an OK read, the author tends to drag.