Customer Reviews

The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

In "The Shield of Achilles," Philip Bobbitt has realized an impressive tour de force in studying in great detail the intimate interaction of law, strategy and history between 1494 and the contemporary era. Bobbitt correctly points out that there is no state without law, strategy and history because they complement and influence one another (p. 6). There can be a state only when the governing institutions of a society have an acknowledged monopoly on the legitimate use of violence at home (law) and abroad (strategy). History relates the account of the stewardship of a society over time that in turns influences law and strategy. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, Bobbitt convincingly shows that the history of the Modern State did not begin at Westphalia in 1648, but in the North of Modern Italy in 1494 (p. 805).

Bobbitt clearly demonstrates that the Modern State was put together when it proved necessary to create a constitutional order that could wage war more efficiently than the feudal and mercantile orders it replaced (p. xxv). Bobbitt spends most of his time covering the pattern of epochal wars and state formation, of peace congresses and international constitutions in Europe. The Modern State was indeed born and went through successive mutations in Europe before spreading to the rest of the world. Bobbitt gives his readers a nice pictorial representation of the six constitutional conventions of the international society of states at the end of Book I dedicated to the State of War (pp. 346-347). Book II focuses on the States of Peace.

To his credit, Bobbitt does not reduce war to a pathology that could one day be eradicated totally. War is as inevitable as death because the Modern State aims to be as efficient as possible to wage war when the opportunity arises to maximize its chance of survival and prosperity (pp. xxvii, 819). Contrary to the popular wisdom, Bobbitt rightly construes war not as the result of a decision made by an aggressor, but as the reaction of a state which cannot acquiesce to the legal and strategic demands of the aggressor (p. 8). Operation Iraqi Freedom is one of the most recent applications of this recurring observation.

Bobbitt also makes an interesting comparison between the assassination of Kitty Genovese occurring in New York in 1964 in the presence of multiple passive witnesses and the wide indifference of the international community to the plight of Bosnia for years in the early 1990s (pp. 411-467). The international community will find in this chapter a well-articulated argumentation for doing little or nothing in the naïve or vain hope that such problems as the on-going genocide against certain groups of population in Darfur, Sudan will disappear as if by magic.

Furthermore, Bobbitt rightly draws the attention of his audience to the importance of the Peace of Paris of 1990 that ended what he called the Long War starting in 1914 (pp. 24-64, 609-663). The Peace of Paris celebrated the triumph of the parliamentary democracy as the winning nation-state model at the successive expense of fascism and communism. Bobbitt is probably at his weakest when he launches himself in scenario analysis about the future of the three competing constitutional forms of the market-state that is taking the place of the nation-state (pp. 717, 728). The international society of states has indeed the choice among the entrepreneurial market-state (e.g., the U.S.), the mercantile market-state (e.g., Japan and China) and the managerial market-state (e.g., the European Union) (pp. 670-676). Each incarnation of the market-state has its pros and cons.

As Bobbitt points out elsewhere in his book, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda could be considered a fourth, malevolent version of the market-state that is a common threat to the other three versions (p. 820). For the first time since the birth of the Modern State, a state structure is no longer necessary to constitute a lethal threat to a society (p. 806). The market-states will have to cooperate with one another for example to contain WMD proliferation, cyber-terrorism against their critical infrastructure, which is increasingly privatized and internationalized, or environmental threats to the planet (pp. 785-797, 800, 806).

Bobbitt states that there is no certainty that the first three constitutional forms of the market-state can coexist peacefully (p. 781). Bobbitt enumerates the ten constitutional conditions that will facilitate the peaceful coexistence of market states (p. 802). Unlike the three constitutional forms of the Nation-State, i.e., parliamentary democracy, communism and fascism, the three constitutional forms of the Market-State could coexist peacefully in the long run. The members of the European Union will probably stick to their managerial model of the market-state because Europe was the theater of the bloody development of a highly competitive society of states for centuries. As the leading entrepreneurial market-state, the United States will remain the champion of globalization and push for the further opening of regional trading blocks and mercantile market states in the foreseeable future.

The greatest source of instability besides terrorism and rogue nations could eventually come from some mercantile market-states such as China and Russia. These two states have not yet fully embraced the tenets of Liberalism and are not satisfied with their military position in the world as Michael Mandelbaum correctly points out in "The Ideas that Conquered the World." In all scenarios, the United States will have to bear a disproportionate burden towards the maintenance of the society of market-states as long as it has the willingness and capability to assume its leadership role (p. 803).

To summarize, "The Shield of Achilles" clearly does not target readers who have a short attention span, do not acknowledge the importance of the past to peruse the future, lack persistence, or are interested in simplistic answers to complex issues.

I understand why so many people have found the book frustrating and too long. It is not a book (like Huntington's Civilizations) where the author simply makes claims on how the future will be. It is a detailed sutdy of the past, of how wars and more pmportantly peace agreements shaped history.

For those who complian about missing the point of the book, I somehow found it very simple. History of the European nation-states, right now the world's most accepted form of governence where the states take the power and legitimacy from its people, has arisen from constant interaction of military and legal innovations. The author goes to great lenght to justify the thesis and in my opinion is very convincing.

The only missing thing in the book is the omition of factors other than those directly related to the topic. Still, one cannot blame the author for keeping those factors out since it would make a book that many already complain is too long, even longer.

Huntington or Fukuyama's approach may seem more direct and understandable to many from the western part of the world, but professor Bobbit goes into great effort to show that history is not over yet, and that we should not expect a clash of civilizations, rather a clash of market states trying to maximize the opporutnites of its clients, sorry citizens.

I definitely reccomend it.

Phillip Bobbitt has created something very rare in the realm of International Relations: an entirely unique new idea. For those students of history and current events who have grown accustomed to the accepted world views: Realism, Idealism - internationalism vs. isolationism; this new entry will provide a welcome and refreshing perspective.

Rather than defining international politics in the typical framework of the "balance of power", or that of a "bipolar" or "mulitpolar" world, Bobbitt has completely redefined the course of history with his thesis. He states the modern state has evolved through the course of history and taken many different forms, based on the demands and interplay (or history) of Strategy and Constitutional development.

These various forms of the state have had differing expectations demanded from their populaces, and differing relationships amongst themselves at the international level. Based on a field relationship between Strategy and Constitutionalism, different forms of the state have proven dominant at different periods of time. Developments in one arena will create new trends in another- and the interplay is constant. Currently Bobbitt makes the case that the current incarnation of the modern state, the Nation-State, is giving way to a new form which he has named the Market-State.

Bobbitt backs up his arguments well with an historical analysis of the modern state ranging from the Machiavellian Princely-State to the wars of the Nation-States and beyond. The entire book is very well documented with Primary and Secondary sources, which are indexed and included in a comprehensive bibliography.

There is also a very interesting section written on the "Possible Worlds" of tomorrow based on the ground rules laid down throughout the book. So Bobbitt not only comments on our past and present, but continues with speculation and predictions on the near term future. This gives the "Shield" very well rounded experience for its contemporary reader. What will be interesting is if this section stands the test of time. I also hope that Mr. Bobbitt comments on his theses in future editions and expands this particular section as history progresses.

The book is Mammoth, and would require a mammoth review to do it justice. So at the expense of thoroughness, and to save you a few minutes I will say this: "The Shield of Achilles" is a long read well worth your time and its arguments should be considered by any students or participants in the field of International Relations.

Some of the reviewers complain about the size of the book, and it is big. But Bobbitt does an admirable job of stating his thesis, that differing constitutional regimes create epochs of differing state organization, and that the conflicts between these constitutional ideas and their representative states is one of the major causes of power conflict, dating back to Westphalia (1688) and even before that, to the time of the development of the city-state in renaissance florence/venice/milan etc.

Bobbitt runs through the historical development of all the subsequent european organizations of the state, up to the 20th century industrial nation state, and what he calls, implicitly paraphrasing Arrighi and Hobsbawm's "long centuries," the "long war" that was to decide which constitutional regime would survive: that of democratic federalism, communist federalism, or fascist federalism.

Now that that war is over, Bobbitt posits that the nation state is weakening and that the market state will enter the world stage. According to bobbitt, contrary to some current theorizing, the state is not "dying;" it is changing-- to the market state. The last part of the book is spent trying to imagine how this might play out over the next century. This is probably the weakest part of the book, but Bobbitt acknowledges that he is embarking on conjectures which obviously are nothing more than that. But since his book was written BEFORE 9/11, some of what he has written does sounds prescient; other parts read almost naive in light of the "war on terror" and bush unilateralism, the weakened dollar, the potential within a rising EU, etc.

THis is a big book, 822 pages of actual text, with a lot of notes and a complete bibliography. If you want to read something about the creation of the state over the past 500 years or so, how it developed, and where it might go from here, this is definitely the work to turn to. SOme of his theorizing regarding the "market state" smacks of basic libertarianism, and reminds me of a rather poorly argued book called "the sovreign individual" by micklethwait and another whose name escapes me at the moment, but in any case, this book is much more scholarly, but by no means inaccessible to any educated person with a little time on their hands to read 822 pages about international law, war and state formation. It is a big picture book that will help you to schematize the current world and the international effects of actions that are taking place at this time. One minor drawback- not much on third world development issues, or why state formation has been different or inconsistent on these economies. But a writer cannot cover everything...

There are some truly excellent ideas in this book...in the end it is worth the effort. Still, Professor Bobbit's lack of self discipline in writing this behemoth did make me knock a star off the rating. He does construct a solid and original model for viewing the history of the state, and I feel profitably applies it to the current turmoil of the day. The book gets more speculative at the end, but the author is the first to say when he is launching into conjecture. Reading these parts is not without value, but given the sheer size of this volume they should have been cut as an act of mercy. In spite of this, the historical content is well researched and the ideas here are exciting. Bobbit soberly and insightfully shows us how the state has evolved, and sheds light on how it is changing today.

Since the extravagant length of the book seems to be turning people away from a piece that should be read, however, let me say two things. First, The Shield of Achilles is broken down into two major sections. I read one, put it down for a few months, and came back. That way I was not at any point overwhelmed. Book I stands on its own without a problem, book II less so. Two, with such an extended indoctrination into Professor Bobbit's way of thinking, you do walk away having a real handle on his ideas. It is a bit like swallowing the idea whole, or perhaps vice versa. Gird your whatever, develop a plan of attack, and read the book. There's real gold in there, you just have to dig.

Those who take the time to wade through this book are in for quite a learning experience. Bobbitt's unique melding of strategy and constitutionalism offers deep insights into the nature of the international system and the future of American power. The chapter on the War in Bosnia - comparing the reaction of the great powers to that of Kitty Genovese's neighbors as she was being murdered in Queens, NY - is gut-wrenching and thought-provoking, and constitutes one of the most engrossing 50 pages that I have ever read. The choices that Bobbitt offers policy-makers are stark and of fundamental importantce - it is a shame that few will take the time to consider the long-term implications of their often hasty short-term decision-making.

This book postulates alternative scenarios for world order/disorder as we begin the 21st century. It draws on an insightful analysis of the evolutionary history of feudal-states, to imperial nation-states, to the struggle between communist/fascist/parliamentary nation-states whose objective was to "better material welfare of its citizens." It shows how the parliamentary-state form of government emerged triumphant in 1990 with the collapse of communism and how it is now transforming itself into a market-state structure whose objective is to "maximize the opportunity of its people."

Focusing on military strategy and technology, and international law and politics, considered by Bobbitt as "the makers of history", he reviews the major European wars from 1494 to 1990 and the major peace agreements that ended them. He also devotes a chapter to the recent war in Bosnia.

His insight into the methods, motivations, skillfulness, and ineptitude of the major players gives us new perceptions on the use of geopolitical power. He uses all this background to consider our current and probable world problems and then, using methods pioneered by Royal Dutch/Shell Group Planning, relates them to three alternative scenarios of how these new market-states may evolve and deal with these issues.

At 827 pages plus notes it is not short, nor is it light reading, but it's lessons are imperative for people involved in government, the military, foreign relations, and global strategic thinking. I also highly recommended it for anyone who desires a thoughtful analysis of what is likely to be in store for our civilization in the days ahead.

This is a most impressive work. It is monumental -- intellectual, deep thinking, not light reading at all. Bobbitt starts with a premise with which I most heartily agree: humanity is entering a whole new era. He sees an evolution of states over the past millennium, each associated with a type of warfare and international environment, transitioning from one to the next due to an epochal war...this is a masterful work. Reading his words, listening to his thoughts, seeing how he structures his arguments, grasping the depth and breadth of his vision and how he pulls it all together into a single, coherent set of ideas, I am struck by the averageness of my intellect and almost overwhelmed by his.
His is profound thinking with far-reaching implications. It strikes home in our post-9/11 awakening. (Its publication was coincidental.) It takes longer to read than its 800+ pages would indicate because one must often stop and ponder his words. If you are willing to take this book on, you will be well rewarded. A resounding 5 stars.

As a doctoral student in International Relations, with a Masters degree in Information Systems, I would like to make the following point to all my superiors: keep it simple. This book of 800 pages could have been written in 200 pages. The ideas are interesting but, because the book lacks structure, finding them is like bobbing for apples. The book, in fact, reads like some vast government report (reminding me of those old five-hour, Soviet-style speeches). Too bad, because there are some very sweet apples down below the water-line. An excellent first draft; please edit and republish.

To call this a seminal work is an understatement. I believe Bobbitt began work on this book around 1993 and finished a few weeks after 9-11. Careful and deliberate scholarship...how often do you hear that today?

It is a brilliant on a number of levels: political theory, history, law, economics, and a touch of sociology. As the title suggests, it does, indeed, chart the course of history....describing the context for today's emerging global society.

This work has immensely practical implications for those interested in transnational threats. The first three goals of good science are exquisitely accomplished - those of description, explanation, and prediction. As to the final goal - prescription - that is accomplished through various scenarios. And, I believe, done in a more than satisfactory manner.

I do, however, have an issue. And it's not with Bobbitt. I have consistently seen Bobbitt's ideas and theories elsewhere, emerging several years after the release of Achilles in works dealing with globalization, "the next stage of terrorism" etc. If Bobbitt is mentioned, it is in passing; and he is never given full intellectual credit as his work is expropriated in a shameless manner.

Read Achilles. It is stimulating and provocative. It has longevity. You will revisit it on an ongoing basis.