Customer Reviews

Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat Responding to the Challenge

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

In "Why Terrorism Works", Alan Dershowitz writes a compelling and very frightening recent history of terrorism. Some of the individual acts were shocking--for example, in the recent past, European governments would use terrorist attacks to justify letting other terrorists out of prison (and the governments tended to have a soft spot for terrorists to begin with). So, when one such government held some terrorists for hijacking, they helped other terrorists stage another false hijacking, and as a result, the government released all the prisoners, like some kind of reward.

Alan Dershowitz describes how, although identifying and treating "root causes" of terrorism (poverty, hunger, etc.) may sound like a fine short-term answer, they will actually encourage terrorism--this being what the terrorists want. There have been many peoples throughout history deserving of attention who have not resorted to terrorism, Dershowitz argues.

Dershowitz instead advocates resorting to "barbaric" punishments--like torture, which, by the way, has is still being used in countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Terrorism has been rewarded so long (case in point, the Palestine Liberation Organization, which reached its goal of being recognized by the United Nations through the threat of terrorism) that now only serious measures could prevent it from being used further.

This book, although upsetting at times in its horrid description of terrorist acts and their "punishments" (often, the perpetrator is simply released to their home country and given a hero's welcome) is timely, informative, and very detailed. I would recommend all to read it, just to get more of an understanding of the challenges we face in the war against terrorism, and the possible solutions.

Rarely have I read a book that demonstrated such a disturbing trend - a trend in which terrorism is rewarded with incentives and practically forced into further terrorist actions. Dershowitz follows the apparent (and for terrorism, the appearance of success equates to actual success) causal relationship between terrorist attacks on innocent civilians and the subsequent recognition and advancement of the groups' cause. Because of this, terrorism has been encouraged by not only the lack of deterrence and the lack of a tough stand on terrorism, but also by the effective promotion of it through the advancement of terrorist groups' causes - such as inviting Arafat to speak at the United Nations after numerous plane hijackings and the ordered murder of American diplomats.

As disturbing as the fact that nearly all terrorists captured outside the Middle East were released in a matter of weeks or months (of the 204 terrorists captured between 1968-1975 outside the Middle East, only 3 remained in prison by 1975), is the assertion that for much of the history of modern international terrorism, the policies of our European allies and the United Nations have only served to further increase terrorism. The arguments not only make sense, they're backed by the historical facts.

The root cause of terrorism is its success, and this book takes a good look at how/why it has succeeded (and in some instances failed) thus far and how a moral society should respond to terrorism.

Why is there terrorism in the world today? Alan Dershowitz speculates the reason can be found in the world's reaction to terrorism in the past. He claims the appeasing nature of the European nations when faced with the terrorist acts of Yassir Arafat's PLO (and other Palestinian groups) from 1968 to 2000 convinced the Islamic extremists that terrorism indeed achieved its desired results and is therefore a popular device used today.

Dershowitz details the history of terrorism, going back to ancient times, but he focuses primarily on the terrorism began by Palestinians in 1968 (and continuing to this day). With the exception of the United States and Israel, each country victimized by Arafat's terroristic acts eventually caved to him, met his demands and eventually recognized his cause. Countries like Germany, France and Italy are Dershowitz's favorite targets, as he contends the leaders of those countries acted exclusively with self interest, failing to consider the incentive they were giving to the terrorists to commit harsher and more creative crimes in the future. Dershowitz asks why would terrorists stop terrorizing when not only were they not punished for their crimes, but they were also rewarded with exposure and support. We all know about the Olympic killings in Munich, but how many people know that Germany released three of the murderers involved shortly after their arrest?

According to Dershowitz, the actions of European countries from 1968-2000 made the September 11th attacks inevitable. They received no penalty for similar crimes in the past (and actually received incentive), so why not do it?

Even though Dershowitz is not usually a fan of the politics of George W. Bush (see his book on the election of 2000), he sees the overwhelming response by Bush after 9/11 as the proper action for any nation victimized by terrorism. Whereas Dershowitz believes the European nations encourage future terrorist acts with their actions, Bush's effort to strike back with sever and precise force is the right thing to do.

Dershowitz goes on to discuss scenarios in which torture would be morally acceptable when fighting terrorism. Many people will ask if this is the same Alan Dershowitz who has made a career out of being one of the top civil liberties attorneys in the world. Yes, it is. Even though he puts a deep importance on civil liberties, he also believes the safety of the world takes precedence. Dershowitz has spent years developing his theories on when the safety of the masses trumps the liberties of some. Most of his counterparts prefer to bury their heads in the sand on this issue, unable to face the reality that sometimes liberty must be sacrificed for the betterment of society.

Dershowitz keeps coming back to two important events. First, he uses a quote by George W. Bush after the beheading of Daniel Pearl in which Bush says terrorists must understand that these types of acts only hurt their cause. Dershowitz shows how terrorists have not believed that in the past when their crimes were directed at most of the world (excluding the USA and Israel).

Dershowitz's second favorite event to discuss is the pre-9/11 incarceration of Zacharias Massaoui and civil liberty laws that tied the hands of the authorities who had him in custody. He claims this is a close real world example of the "ticking time bomb" scenario many philosophers and leaders have debated for centuries: what tactics are you willing to take to get information from someone who knows of a catastrophic event but will not discuss it?

Dershowitz's solutions point to a man who truly is concerned with protecting the constitutional rights of the individual and abiding by the laws of the Geneva Convention, but who is also concerned with avoiding the naive policies of most civil libertarians who would rather protect the rights of one man than to save the lives of thousands. Even those who disagree with him on certain issues will see a debate master at work. Rarely are arguments more focused, more passionate, better researched or more convincing. A must read for anyone interested in understanding global terrorism.

There is much in this book that I find compelling, disturbing, and meritorious. There is also much that is missing. On balance, it is essential reading.

It's most important flaw is that the author completely discounts the possibility that suicidal terrorism might be both a rational strategy, and an inherent instinctive, acceptable means, for those groups whose religions and cultural dynamics literally groom children from birth for a glorious exit as a martyr. COnsider the following, inserted to document this most important flaw in the book, from US News U.S. expert: Suicide bombers are not crazy by Haaretz Via Virtual Jerusalem News (Israel)on 24 May 2003: SAN FRANCISCO - A top expert on the psychology of terrorism who spent two decades in the CIA said on Thursday that suicide bombers are not crazy and are often seen as models of exemplary behavior in their societies. Jerrold Post, who founded the Central Intelligence Agency's Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior, presented his findings after interviewing 21 radical Islamic extremists in Israeli and Palestinian prisons. "We should not think of these individuals as crazed fanatics, as seriously psychiatrically ill," he told the American Psychiatric Association's annual meeting. ... "These are very normal-sounding individuals who have basically been bred to hate from very early on," he said.

I leave it at that. Having addressed the negative up front, I now will emphasize the positives that demand this book be in the forefront of any discussion about dealing with terrorism.

First off, of all the books I have read on terrorism, most by either researchers or investigators of former spies, this is the one whose author is, by any standard, the most educated, most logical, most grounded in the precepts of rational law, and most articulate on why governments need to have firm and constant policies for dealing with terrorism in such as way as to "discourage others."

Second, the author's 22-page list of acts of Palestinian terrorism that went unchecked prior to 9-11, is alone worth the price of the book. While I do agree with one other reviewer who suggests that the author is obsessing on Palestinian terrorism (as opposed to Saudi or Pakistani or Egyptian-sponsored terrorism), he has a point and this list merits close attention.

Third, although I may not agree with all of his recommendations for imposing internal security while sacrificing considerable civil liberties, this is as close as I have seen anyone get to a comprehensive practical list of things that need to be done, to include controlling the media so that terrorists are not rewarded with publicity.

There is one minor shortcoming in the book--minor because so many of us have documented this across 15+ books in the 1999-2002 period: the author does not truly comprehend the ineptitude of the US Government, with its 1950's mind-sets, 1970's information technology, and 1990's ideologies that place cheap oil and tax cuts above homeland security and economic sustainability. As a remedy to the author's shortcomings in this area I recommend Robert Baer, SEE NO EVIL (on the CIA's inability to penetrate terrorist groups), and a combination of books on the FBI's ineptitude: Aqil Collins, My Jihad, and Anonymous, TERRORIST HUNTER--most interestingly, both a US mujahid that has lost a leg to combat, and an Israeli researcher on US terrorism, agree that the FBI is extraordinarly inept, and remains so two years after 9-11.

This is an intelligent book that requires discipline to appreciate--it cannot be accepted without question, but it also cannot be ignored. Highly recommended.

The ideas painstakingly detailed in this book are so elementary that unless Dersh pointed out that they'd been ignored time and again, we'd never believe they needed repeating. If terrorists are rewarded for their deadly acts -- by, for example, gaining status at the U.N. or by having their hijackers released from prison, or by sympathetic portrayals by weak-kneed media -- they will repeat those acts. Duh. The slaughter of innocents results in hand-wringing efforts by the civilized world (ie, Europe, where "civilized" means patting murderers on the head) to understand the "root cause" of this barbarism. The root cause,the author correctly points out, is that those who resort to senseless murder to further their goals are savage lunatics who should not be rewarded or otherwise encouraged.

Harvard don and civil-liberties lawyer extraordinaire Alan Dershowitz turns his keen and combative eye to the war on terrorism, and the results aren't pretty. His conclusions about the causes of terrorism and the most effective means of fighting will not sit well with many of Dershowitz's historically steadfast supporters. The normally liberal lawyer lambastes European governments for what he characterizes as their cowardly appeasement of terrorists, which he points to as the central driver of growth in the terrorism industry. He also proclaims flatly that the international community should purposefully refrain from addressing the "root causes" of any group that adopts terrorist means. How this would work in practice is never quite explained, but nevertheless, we from getAbstract recommend this important and damning book as a welcomed addition to the emerging debate on how best to wage the war on terrorism.

The American civil rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz is a liberal who is also a defender of the US and Israeli states. This tension between rights and force puts him into contradictory postures.

So, as a defender of the US and Israeli states, he writes of terrorism, "We must commit ourselves never to try to understand or eliminate its alleged root causes." This is to assume that `our' cause and governments are perfectly just. But whether US and Israeli policies have helped to cause terrorism is a question of fact, and the evidence is that US policy towards the Middle East has helped to cause terrorism.

It has also been unjust, which of course does not excuse the terrorists. To identify a policy as unjust does not entail support for righting the injustice through terrorism. So we can agree with him that "no cause - no end - justifies resort to the unacceptable means of terrorism."

He discusses torture mainly in his chapter 4, what we should do in the ticking bomb scenario, not in chapter 3, on what he imagines an amoral state would do, in which he gives just one page to discussing torture. Throughout chapter 4 he puts the case for allowing torture. He has a 7-page section on the case for, but no section on the case against. He writes of `numerous instances in which torture has produced self-proving, truthful information that was necessary to prevent harm to civilians'. What on earth does `self-proving' mean? But when he tries to prove this crucial point of his argument, he cites just one case where, he writes, torture elicited `information that may have foiled plots ...' So his best, his supposedly clinching, case rests on a mere `may have' - hardly conclusive proof. In the real world, there have been no examples of the `ticking bomb' scenario. If there had been, he would surely have cited them.

He writes, "In Israel, the use of torture to prevent terrorism was not hypothetical; it was very real and recurring. ... the extraordinarily rare situation of the hypothetical ticking bomb terrorist was serving as a moral, intellectual, and legal justification for a pervasive system of coercive interrogation." This undermines his whole rationale for allowing limited, legalised torture - it never stays limited. Yet despite recognising that Israel's illegal occupation of territories acquired by war has led to widespread and systematic torture, he persists in supporting the occupation and even calls for further collective punishments of the Palestinian people.

He not only defends Israeli state terrorism but US state terrorism too, backing (as do both John McCain and Barack Obama) the illegal US sanctions against Cuba, the main victim of US state terrorism. Cuba has suffered more than 40 years of terrorist attacks launched unchecked from Miami.

Clearly, present Israeli policies are not working, but Dershowitz's solution is to urge Israel to be even harsher. But the more violence the Israeli government has used, the more violence its civilians have suffered. More Israelis were killed when Sharon was Prime Minister, 2001-6, than in the 1967 War.

When (not if) Dershowitz's policy does not work, will he admit its failure and accept what most of the rest of the world accepts - a two-state solution? Or will he say that the repression should be even harsher? His proposals have no limits - they promise only endless occupation, more wars and worse oppression.

Similarly, attacking Iraq has made us all less secure and strengthened the radical Islamic terrorist movement. The US state's bellicose response to the 9/11 atrocity was not only dishonourable and unethical, given the cruel suffering it has inflicted on thousands of innocents, but also imprudent in the extreme because it was bound to produce as much hatred as fear, as much burning desire for reprisal as quaking docility.

Dershowitz advocates some sensible policies to counter terrorism - effective border control systems, deportation of illegal immigrants and use of face recognition technology at airports. He rightly opposes President Bush's unprecedented authorisation of secret military trials of American residents suspected of terrorist offences, because, as he notes, to put justice under the chain of military command is to end justice. Yet he also supports introducing ID cards, which are notoriously unreliable, expensive and ineffective.

The war on terror is bound to fail when conducted, as it has been so far, against the rule of law and outside the constitution. To `go around the law' when combating terrorism is to regress to collective punishment. Waiving the rules does the work of terrorists: it creates a world where violence breeds violence - where terrorism breeds torture and torture breeds terrorism. This will not be a safer world.

In 1729 Jonathan Swift caused quite a stir with his satirical essay entitled "A Modest Proposal", in which he uses logic to propose eating children. Well, Alan Dershowitz's suggests something equally outrageous in this book. He's a law professor and quite experienced at persuasive argumentation and pleading cases in front of juries. He also has a way with words and a forceful way of stating his case. Problem is though, this book is not meant to be satirical. That's the problem.

In searching for the root causes of terrorism, the author discounts the easy answer of poverty or disfranchisement. There are many peoples throughout the world who suffer in this in this way and yet they do not resort to attacking innocent civilians.

According to the author, terrorism works for one reason. The world rewards it.

The first third of the book contains specific examples, mostly drawn from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. From the Munich Olympics to airplane hijackings, we see the terrorists gain more and more power. Twenty pages are devoted to a timeline connecting a terrorist act with a specific gain, including having the Palestinian cause recognized by the U.N. By the time I finished the chapter, I agreed that terrorism was an awful tool and something had to be done about it. However, I knew that before I started the book.

As the author is a legal expert and also has a large team of young lawyers willing to research legal precedents, he weaves legal arguments throughout. This is what he is trained to do, of course - choose a position and then give lots of factual supporting documentation. The reader is cast in the role of a jury. Problem is there is no attorney on the opposite side presenting a different viewpoint.

But whether or not there is a precedent in law, I had no problem agreeing that we need to tighten control on our borders. I can even see the reasons for having a national identity card. Logically, he believes that vigorous debate can create the right compromise as to what information will be stored on the card, especially after open discussions.

In addition to this, he believes, that in certain situations, where the public safety is at great risk, a little torture can go a long way. He gives examples of what totalitarian governments do and suggests we might adopt some of their techniques as a means to get information and also as a punishment. He talks about ways this can be done legally with "torture warrants" in only the most extraordinary circumstances. He talks about a sterilized needle under the fingernail, which would cause extreme non-lethal pain. He specifically repeats the words "sterilized" and "non-lethal" as if this could make the act acceptable.

I'm not naïve. I know this goes on all over the world. It's been done since human beings existed. It's done as a matter of course in Sri Lanka, Algeria, Africa and throughout the Middle East. I even know that our government lets terrorist suspects be questioned in Jordan. I'm sure that they don't sterilize their needles in these places. But that's not the point.

I recoil in horror. Can this guy be for real? This is America. We don't do THAT here. And I don't care if a million other countries find it effective. I don't care if it can supposedly save lives. I don't even care if it works. This is wrong!

One of the things I liked best about the book was that it was provocative. It clearly put the problem of terrorism in front of his audience, and I do agree that it shouldn't be rewarded. He has no real solution, of course. And I don't think we're likely to find any. It's a very imperfect world out there. There are no easy answers. I wonder if there are answers at all.

Do read this book. And read other books too. Learning as much as we can is a privilege we have right now. Let's take advantage of it.

The main thesis of this work is that the international community rewards Terrorism. A good part of the examples presented relate to the tremendous success Palestinian terrorism has had in moving the international community to applaud and reward terror. Today Terrorism is thriving on many different fronts, most of which have some connection with a discontented Islamic group of one kind or another.
Since this book was written we have not seen the international community forcefully take a stand in support of the US in its effort to move Iraq to a democratic future. Instead the Sunni terrorists who are daily murdering their fellow Muslims are rewarded by the support, clandestine or otherwise, of Arab countries.
The Palestinians, who have done more for international terror than any other people, have just been given the prize of having Jews removed from Gaza. Their reaction was the burning of synagogues and promises that they will war against Israel until they have destroyed it completely. For these kind actions they were treated as usual with kid gloves by the Western Media, which has an ambivalent attitude towards terror.
Dershowitz in this book makes recommedations for American policies including the introduction of identity- cards, which he hopes will stem future acts of terror.
Most experts however believe that the cat is already out of the bag, and that the US is filled with sleeper cells , ready to produce the next great mass horror. Let's pray this is not true, and the terrorists have been trying, and have not succeeded to this point.
One more point in this rambling review. The US war on terror is compromised by its support of the Saudi Regime. The Saudi Regime has cultivated Wahhabi Islam which is the main source not only of the Osama Bin- Laden way of thought but of most of the radical Islamic terror in the world. The US has not known how to deal with the Saudi problem. And now has a great threat in terror coming from Iran, the threat of nuclear terror.
Dershowitz does not outline the full range of problems confronting the West in confronting Terror. But he does show how Terror has paid, and has not been stopped.
Unfortunately, if the Western world does not learn to do better against this scourge, all of human civilization , and the worlds of freedom which so many of us have been fortunate to have known all our adult lives, will be severely threatened in the future.

I titled this review "A Voice of Reason." Because, if anything, Alan Dershowitz is a thinker, and a very good one. I did not mean to imply, however, that I agree with all his reasoning. But, oh how refreshing to hear a non-combative voice of reason on the issue of how to deal with terrorism. Everyone wanting to know more about what we should do and should not do should read Dershowitz' book first. It will set up the mind constructs you need for thinking about the problem.

Some reviewers claim Dershowitz is biased; i.e.--that he focuses too much on Palestinian terrorists. I disagree. His 21 pages enumerating Palestinian terrorist attacks convince me that Dershowitz focuses his attention right where it needs to be. He does not neglect Al Quaeda. He gives them the attention they deserve. And he gives the Palestinian terrorists the attention they deserve.

Dershowitz proposes that there be a world-wide debate about what defensive techniques should be allowed against terrorists. He includes a most thoughtful discussion about whether or not a country is justified in torturing a terrorist if the country feels that a massive terrorist attack is eminent. He argues that history proves that all countries will use torture in such a situation, but it will be sub-rosa torture in the countries where it is outlawed. He argues for a formalized system where the Federal court system gives the okay in extreme situations, so that the protections the judicial branch afford to us are afforded in these extreme situations too. He argues that judges are far less likely to approve such extreme tactics as are heads of intelligence agencies.

Detractors of his argument claim Dershowitz is proposing a reversion from civilized morality back to a darker era. He asserts, however, that he is not proposing anything new or reversionary. Rather, he is protesting the fact that torture occurs sub-rosa instead of being subject to judicial review. Disagree if you will, but it is wrong to mischaracterize what Dershowitz proposes. It is, after all, the same kind of argument as the "condoms for kids" issue. One side argues that premarital sex is happening anyway, so we should provide condoms to help prevent pregnancy and disease. The other side argues that the condoms themselves promote ever more promiscuity. There is truth on both sides of the argument. Dershowitz is fully cognizant of both sided of the issue. I wonder if some of the reviewers here are.

Dershowitz' argument for NICs (national identity cards) is the single area where I think he may have missed a critical point. Undoubtedly, NICs would help us control who gets into and stays in the United States. They also would stop lots of identity theft, fraud, and abuse. No arguments there. No arguments with his rationales either. But, just like the Social Security number, soon businesses would require the NIC as proof of person. Can you imagine the economic damage that could be done to a person if his/her NIC came up "invalid?" You could buy nothing without cash, and you couldn't get the cash without a valid NIC. Hmmm! That gives the government power to economically sanction individuals that voice opposition to their policies. The invalidation of your NIC would, of course just be an "unfortunate mistake" should you be successful in drawing the media's attention to it. Dershowitz says nothing about this possibility, which surprised me, because no fundamentalist Christian would ever miss this "mark of the beast" issue.

Notwithstanding the one omission just mentioned, I heartily recommend this book. The author makes you think, and leaves you enlightened and assured that we can manage terrorism and still preserve our liberties if we approach the problem with non-partisan rationality.