Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century

by: Philip Bobbitt

Published by: Knopf

Reviewed by Muhammed Hassanali

Terror and Consent defines Market States (such as the U.S.) as those states that are characterized by their emphasis of adopting a free-market philosophy in all areas of human endeavors. As such, states should strive for deregulation and privatization (of prisons, pensions, armies, etc). The argument is that in doing so the state has abdicated its duties of governance. The narrative argues that empirical evidence suggests that by adopting corporate model for governance, Market States have become too formidable to be challenged militarily, but they have also opened the door for the sale of goods and services (such as weapons) to other non-state customers.

The focus is disproportionately on terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction, but it could be other goods and services as well as other entities. As the state has lost the monopoly on the weapons of mass destruction, the non-government entities can now make a legitimate state vulnerable to destabilization. Specifically the focus is on terrorizing the general population. The narrative describes the state’s objective as protecting civilians (not just territory) from terror (not terrorists). Natural and human-caused terrors are not differentiated in this analysis.

One can take exception to the model presented, and hence not all the recommendations that follow will resonate with the reader (although there will be some that a given reader will identify with). The book does not adequately differentiate between a nation state and a market state. This could be because the distinction is covered in an earlier work, and hence would require readers to be familiar with that work as well. Terror and Consent is itself over 500 pages of dense reading, which would effectively deter most readers from reading another similar work.

While one could fault this work for ignoring the hold that legacy has on us as a nation, or for not taking into account empirical evidence that at first glance seems to refute the model presented, or for not strongly demonstrating the relevance of the examples chosen to the model, the work should be credited for encouraging us to revisit our notions about terrorism. It should also be recognized for trying to coherently fit government strategy with law.

Armchair Interviews says: An important read of interest to a niche market.