"The man who many considered the peace candidate in the last election was transformed into a war president," writes bestselling author and leading academic Stephen l. Carter in The Violence of Peace, his new book decoding what President Barack Obama's views on war mean for America and its role in military conflict, now and going forward. As America winds down a war in Iraq, ratchets up another in Afghanistan, and continues a global war on terrorism, Carter delves into the implications of the military philosophy Obama has adopted through his first two years in office. Responding to the invitation that Obama himself issued in his Nobel address, Carter uses the tools of the Western tradition of just and unjust war to evaluate Obama's actions and words about military conflict, offering insight into how the president will handle existing and future wars, and into how his judgment will shape America's fate. Carter also explores war as a way to defend others from tyrannical regimes, which Obama has endorsed but not yet tested, and reveals the surprising ways in which some of the tactics Obama has used or authorized are more extreme than those of his predecessor, George W. Bush. "Keeping the nation at peace," Carter writes, "often requires battle," and this book lays bare exactly how America's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are shaping the way Obama views the country's role in conflict and peace, ultimately determining the fate of the nation.
The Violence of Peace: America's Wars in the Age of Obama
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle.
Learn more
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
Distinguished Yale Law professor and bestselling author Carter (The Emperor of Ocean Park) examines Obama's words (particularly his invocation of the "just war tradition" during his Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech, the full text of which is included here) and actions in order to determine his position on "what he believes to be worth fighting for." Rather than vilifying Obama, who has continued the dubious war-mongering of his predecessor, Carter believes that neither Bush nor Obama had much choice, arguing that modern warfare, involving drone attacks and long-distance fighting, is an autopoietic process. Carter delves into Obama's orientation toward the tenets of Just War, the theory that has dominated Western thought since the Roman era: jus ad bellum (just cause for going to war); jus in bello (just conduct within war); jus ad pacem (success in war); and pacem in terris (peace). The author cites Dissent editor Michael Walzer and other prominent political scientists almost as frequently as he does the president, and includes examples of warfare from the American Civil War to Afghanistan, resulting in a thoughtful examination of America's engagement in a "great war" undertaken by a dedicated thinker on the subject. (Jan.)
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
Review
Henry Louis Gates, Jr., Alphonse Fletcher University Professor, Harvard University
“In this very important book, Stephen Carter demands, and provides, a clear-eyed ethical examination of Obama's ideas about just and unjust war — nothing less than what is worth dying for.”
Former Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
“In this brilliant examination of the moral dimensions involved in our nation’s decision to wage—or refuse to wage—war, Stephen L. Carter writes with the intellectual profundity of a scholar and the grace of a gifted novelist. The Violence of Peace is a must-read."
Publishers Weekly
Distinguished Yale Law professor and bestselling author Carter (The Emperor of Ocean Park) examines Obama's words (particularly his invocation of the "just war tradition" during his Nobel Peace prize acceptance speech) and actions in order to determine his position on "what he believes to be worth fighting for." Rather than vilifying Obama, who has continued the dubious war-mongering of his predecessor, Carter believes that neither Bush nor Obama had much choice, arguing that modern warfare, involving drone attacks and long-distance fighting, is an autopoietic process. Carter delves into Obama's orientation toward the tenets of Just War, the theory that has dominated Western thought since the Roman era: jus ad bellum (just cause for going to war); jus in bello (just conduct within war); jus ad pacem (success in war); and pacem in terris (peace). The author cites Dissent editor Michael Walzer and other prominent political scientists almost as frequently as he does the president, and includes examples of warfare from the American Civil War to Afghanistan, resulting in a thoughtful examination of America's engagement in a "great war" undertaken by a dedicated thinker on the subject.
Kirkus Reviews
Barack Obama, Bushian warmonger. That’s an oversimplification of the author’s argument, but the point remains: As noted legal scholar and novelist Carter examines the morality of war, and in particular President Obama’s theory of just war, he concludes that the continuum from Bush to current times is more continuous than disrupted. President Obama, writes the author, has failed to discontinue many of his predecessor’s practices, even ones against which he campaigned. For one thing, though at least in theory America does not torture its captives, there is no evidence to suggest that “rendition” to countries less scrupulous about waterboarding and fingernail-pulling has diminished since 2008. The Obama administration seems to have accepted without much qualification the theory, thoroughly applied during the Bush years but antedating them, that American citizens who aid the enemy are candidates not for trial but for assassination. Obama may even go a step further than Bush, Carter writes, should he become actively committed to the principle that citizens oppressed by their governments are candidates for deliverance by American warriors. The author provides lucid commentary on the complexities of jus in bello theories, and he seems to be a realist: America has real enemies in the world, against whom real opposition is wanted. The so-called War on Terror has as its goal not victory but prevention, and, given that “you cannot keep your enemy from striking unless you know his plans,” the ability to acquire that knowledge in a timely way becomes paramount – though whether the means justify the ends remains a matter for argument. Smart, nuanced and worrying, given a nation mired in two wars – and with more, perhaps, on the horizon.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
More About the Author
Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.
Customer Reviews
|
Share your thoughts with other customers:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
40 of 40 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Thoughtful Assessment of U.S. War Policies,
By
This review is from: The Violence of Peace: America's Wars in the Age of Obama (Hardcover)
Initially, I was not inclined to purchase this book. Its subtitle suggested a range of focus far too narrow ("America's Wars in the Age of Obama"). And since the author is a liberal Ivy League law school professor (yes, I know that description is redundant in the extreme), I figured this would be another paean to "hope and change" or a polemical indictment of Bush's war policies. But I was wrong.First, the scope of the book is far greater than Obama's conduct of the three ongoing American conflicts: the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, and the War on Terror. Yes, Professor Carter does dissect the President's military policies but he does so in the broader context of U.S. foreign policy, drawing upon useful historical parallels and analyzing the views of many of the right's best thinkers (e.g., Judge Posner) as well as those from the left (Jean Bethke Elshtain). Second, considering the author's own liberal predilections, the book is quite balanced and unfailingly analytical. Carter defends his thesis--that the similarities between Bush and Obama war policies are far greater than the differences (though the subtle differences are important)--convincingly. Further, he bends over backwards to give the Bush Administration a fair hearing. Indeed, I thought he was too kind in his willingness to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on his administration's faith in the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But, as he adroitly notes, even if Saddam had possessed WMDs, that, standing alone, was not justification for the invasion since there was no indication that Iraq intended to use whatever weapons it did possess against us or our allies. Carter rightly notes, without being cynical, that Obama's aggressive use of predator drones and prisoner renditions is motivated primarily by his realization that the terrorist threats are real and that, above all else, Obama wants to be reelected in 2012. I, think, however, that he dwells a bit too much on Obama's reference to the concept of a "just war" in his Nobel peace prize acceptance speech. This was little more than a rhetorical flourish on the President's part, though I must admit that Carter's discussion of the origins of the "just war" concept was interesting. I disagree with Carter, however, in his efforts to characterize the Afghan War as a "preventive" or "preemptive" conflict, rather than a war of self-defense (a "war of necessity," as described by both Bush and Obama). He believes the self-defense rationale is inappropriate because, at the time we invaded Afghanistan, al-Qaeda was not engaging in any actual attacks against America. While that may be technically true, we did not know whether another attack was imminent. Moreover, most people will not embrace a definition of self-defense that is limited only to those situations where your adversary continuously, without hiatus, attacks you. The fact that your adversary lacks the resources (e.g., runs out of ammunition periodically) to fire at you unceasingly does not mean that he is only a "weekend warrior," especially when that enemy has a history of attacking your people and property throughout the world. In fairness, Carter isn't suggesting that preventive or preemptive wars are inherently wrong; nevertheless, his concept of national self-defense is far too restrictive. As you can see, Professor Carter made me think. And you can't ask much more from a book. In an age when the Current Affairs shelves at the local bookstore seem filled mostly with vapid polemics, it was a pleasant surprise to stumble upon a thoughtful examination of the military challenges we face. Highly recommended.
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Great Potential, Weak Follow-Through,
By
This review is from: The Violence of Peace: America's Wars in the Age of Obama (Hardcover)
I actually didn't purchase this book but, seeing it in my local library, I scooped it up because the dust cover hinted at a professor (who happened to be unknown to me) approaching the war policies of Obama in a fresh and different way. Given his subject, and the inordinate time he spends discussing just war theory and the obligations laid on America by her superpower status, I regret that this book was written before our involvement in Libya; I think that, much more than Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya would have provided great grist for Carter's mill.I regret that, in all of his arguments (and they were very intellectually honest and thoughtful), Carter doesn't actually answer the fundamental question of WHY just war theory is a superior way to analyze the decision to go to war or why being a superpower obligates America to be the designated war-maker when there is a moral cause. The question of why just war theory is appropriate is very important because it is both novel (war has almost never been altruistic) and inappropriate on the surface. Nations that go to war to be morally good have historically never looked back on the action with pride and satisfaction; whether it was the numerous Crusades (only the first of which was successful) to free a Christian holy place from Islam, England intervening in both world wars because Germany's leadership was (in their view) morally bankrupt, or America stepping into many conflicts (Cuba, World War I, Korea, Vietnam), nations invariably look back on the triumph of moral goodness over national self-interest with sorrow. Because this is the case, Carter needed to justify treating moral goodness as the best cause for the resort to war; he did not do so. The other why that I believe Carter fails to answer is why having the capacity to make war and win war (the essence of being a superpower) obligates America to go to war for a moral end. Commentators on superpower status, thinking of England's rise and fall as an imperial power, have argued that to be a superpower is to have the power to win a great war; accompanying this argument, they have noted that remaining a superpower requires that one never fights a great war. The British Empire did not suffer strategic defeat until it confronted the vast German military machine in continental Europe and was rescued from disaster only by America (who came to bitterly regret her foolishness). When it suffered the same drubbing for the same reason and had to be rescued the same way, it ceased to be a superpower. This is a powerful historical association and with his apparently well-educated perspective, Carter ought to have refuted it or at least convincingly confronted it; he did not do so. As an aside, and noting that this is merely a personal gripe instead of me believing that it harms the book, I was disappointed that when discussing the circumstances of Lt. Michael P Murphy's Medal of Honor, Carter seemed to be ignorant about the treatment of the same matter in Mark Thiessen's book "Courting Disaster." This disappointed me because being unaware of the treatment let Carter to assert that we do not know whether the Navy SEAL unit to which Murphy belong was influenced by the fear of civilian law in the decision that led to the ambush in which Lt. Murphy was killed; Thiessen's interview with the surviving SEAL made it clear that this was the case. This seemed to me to have very good potential as a place to discuss whether taking normally immoral actions to save your life and the lives of others is acceptable in just war theory and I believe that Carter would have had some interesting and thoughtful contributions to offer. I believe that if Carter had fought and won those two intellectual contests (or at least made a good showing), the full potential of his book explaining the application of just war theory during the stewardship of Obama would have been realized; it would have been a 4 or 5-star book instead of a 3-star one and would have been a truly great component of the overall constellation of scholarly arguments on this subject.
5.0 out of 5 stars
mind expanding,
By
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Violence of Peace: America's Wars in the Age of Obama (Hardcover)
Amazing analysis of our stance on just and non just wars. Done with detachment and in a way that is non partisan.
Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
|
|
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Suggested Tags from Similar Products(What's this?)Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
|
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
Listmania!
|
|
