Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Puts Terrorism in a Historical Context, 19 Mar 2004
Terrorism is terrible, and never less than shocking, but Caleb Carr puts it in the light of history."The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians: Why It Has Always Failed and Why It Will Fail Again" shows us how terrorism has been used, and why terrorist efforts like the World Trade Center tragedies will accomplish nothing but carnage. While America sees the evil ugliness of world terrorism, Carr notes how, thoughout the years, terrorism has been a tool by most militaries, even our own in the US. His emphasis on the military side of terrorism, as opposed to a few radicals will be alarming. His analysis of various US civil and international wars and conflicts isn't pretty, and, on such a short book, not easily agreed with at face value. Still, he forces the reader to see past the result of the war, and see the process of war with moral and ethical truth, one way or another. It is a frustratingly short book, but necessary nonetheless. His points are substantiated, but with his thesis so broad-stroking, it would be good, if in subsequent editions he likewise broadens his support of these points. Timelines, charts, tables all would help. Just the same, Carr courageously asserts that terrorism is not unique to foreign political and miliary entities. He tries to avoid the public relations skews that we have put on our own actions. Boldly, his is unafraid to say what both liberals and conservatives already are too keenly cognizant of, that we've not always played wargames fairly. Don't accept Carr at his word, nor expect to agree with every argument. I certainly don't. I do agree, however, that we need to consider the defining and perspective of terrorism with a honest look at what the US has done and is doing. I fully recommend "The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians: Why It Has Always Failed and Why It Will Fail Again" by Caleb Carr.
|
|
|
Same end, other means, 19 Aug 2005
This book was recommended to me by an American Trot. And he is one who stayed a Trot unlike the Neocons.
The book is about the war in Iraq, though Iraq is not much mentioned.
Reading it, it struck me that when it comes to ends he totally agrees with the present American administration. But he totally disagrees with it, when it comes to means and he writes with much learning about how such methods have failed again and again and again.
His recommendations are not too hot. Off hand I cannot recall any of his suggestions that was not tried in Vietnam.
Still, all in all, absolutely recommended.
|
|
|
A very good analysis, 19 Aug 2004
In this fascinating work, author and historian Caleb Carr looks at modern terrorism in the context of the history of war. It is the author's contention that throughout the history of warfare, people have often targeted the civilian population of their enemies in an attempt to undercut their support for their government or for certain causes. The author further contends that the combatants that resort first to the use of terror tactics and those who use them the most viciously are certain to see their own position dangerously undercut.Starting with ancient Rome, the author traces the history of the West, as the idea of limited war, involving respect for civilians and a minimization of casualties, kept being rediscovered and then abandoned. In the final analysis, the Muslim extremists who have taken up terrorism as their weapon have damaged their own cause, and now the United States must actively fight against these extremists, while avoiding using terror and spurring the Middle East on to future terror. I must admit that people are correct to question some of the author's analyses. Indeed, I found the author's treatment of the CIA and Vietnam to quite unobjective, and his denunciations of strategic bombing and economic embargo made me wonder how he would have suggested that the United States battle Japan during W.W.2 (presumably through grinding island-invasion campaigning). Also, some of his other analyses seem out of balance as well. But, that said, the author isn't entirely anti-West, showing as he does that it has only been in the West that people have striven to eschew terror as a weapon. Indeed, he is quite clear that non-Western people's use of terror produced its own consequences - such as the African complicity in the slave trade, and the Native American's use of terror rebounding to their own destruction. Overall, I found this to be a very good analysis, and I do think that the author goes a long way towards proving his point. I would go one step further, the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, seeking to remove them as terrorist supporting states while attempting to limit civilian casualties, suggests that the Bush administration has been reading this book.
|
|
|
|
(3 customer reviews)
(
