The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians: Why It Has Always Failed and Why It Will Fail Again - Book Reviews

Parameters, Summer, 2003 by Dr. Douglas V. Johnson, II

The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians: Why It Has Always Failed and Why It Will Fail Again. By Caleb Carr. New York: Random House, 2002.

If you are into Political Correctitude don't read this book--it will only give you apoplexy-but if you like your history slashingly unvarnished and straightforward, you will love it! Be warned, however, that the Prologue and Chapter One are difficult going as the author trots out his own peculiar philosophy of organized violence. Carr 's definition of terrorism is "the contemporary name given to...warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable."

He then proceeds to make clear the true nature of terrorism as so defined: "[We] have in the past been, and in disturbing numbers remain, prepared to treat terrorists as being on a par with smugglers, drug traffickers, or, at most, some kind of political Mafiosi, rather than what they have in fact been for almost half a century: organized, highly trained, hugely destructive paramilitary units that were and are conducting offensive campaigns against a variety of nations and social systems." Carr continues to refine his perception of terrorism: "One can refuse to call such people an army, if one wishes; yet they are organized as an army, and certainly they conduct themselves as an army, giving and taking secret orders to attack their enemies with a variety of tactics that serve one overarching strategy: terror."

Following this attempt at defining the issue, he moves on to declare, within the context of Just War theory, that most wars have eventually become little more than acts of terrorism. The bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan come in for particularly sharp scrutiny, calling to mind Sir Winston Churchill's devastatingly perceptive question, "Are we beasts?" In Carr's treatment of Just War theory, the reader will be exposed to a good deal more Emmerich de Vattel than Hugo Grotius.

Thence Carr begins a tour of global military history from China to the Incas by way of the rest of the world, pausing in Prussia to highlight the wars of Frederick the Great. Here, says Carr, is a man who fully understood that war is a political act which, if it is waged against populations, is inherently self-defeating. Instead, Frederick fully deserves the title "Great" because he kept war within strict bounds of policy and maintained his focus on the enemy army as the key supporting pillar of the government he wished to subdue. Carr then proceeds in his analysis of the politically correct myth that all colonial wars were inherently evil by illuminating the murderous activities and willing participation of the "natives" in the ethnic and tribal wars of the 18th century and beyond. The consequence of engaging in these wars, however, led some to conclude that "to defeat a savage one must become a savage." He argues that proposition is as hollow and self-serving today as it ever was, and that "the idea that on e cannot defeat those who practice the tactics of terror without practicing such tactics oneself has never been more than a fig leaf behind which naturally malicious, vengeful, and blood-thirsty characters attempt to hide their own barbarity." That should give American soldiers both pause and pride for their conduct of the war against terrorism. It may also serve to rehabilitate the old Vietnam saw about "winning the hearts and minds" by placing concepts in a broader, perhaps more "just" context.

Carr concludes that the current terrorist efforts will fail because their tactics are inherently illegitimate--the deliberate attack upon civilians--and: "In so doing, the organizers, sponsors, and foot soldiers of every terrorist group involved in the September 11 attacks have unwittingly ensured that their extremist cause will be discredited among many of their sympathizers, disowned by their former sponsors, and finally defeated by their enemies.

The only remaining question is whether the United States will stoop to an equivalent level of barbarity, an issue that Carr suggests may be in some doubt if the traditional "American Way of War" is followed. The reader may not agree with what Carr has to say, but one cannot help but be profoundly stimulated by his arguments.