Why Terrorism Works

Rating:
Summary: Terrorism's success breeds more terror
Review: This book starts by showing why terrorism works: it's successful. It gets headlines. It gets sympathetic treatment in the press. It gets appeased.

The most obvious example of this is Arab terror against Israel. If Israelis get killed, there is immediate worldwide support for terror, not for Israel. If Arabs get killed, there is immediate worldwide support for terror, not Israel. The terrorist argument that terror pays seems unrefutable in this case. Unless, of course, the terrorists get defeated militarily some day. Dershowitz explains this very well, with charts showing the connection between Arab terrorism and international appeasement of the terrorists.

Some say that the Jews deserve terror. But I think they are missing the point. The issue has to be the terrorists, not the victims. Sure, the Jews killed Jezebel. So what? Yes, the Jews who fought at Masada may or may not have been all that nice. So what? And yes, even in the 1940s, some Jews fought against the British occupiers of their land. Again, so what? The point is that the present Arab terrorists are not choosing terrorism as a last, desperate measure. It's their first choice. Dershowitz does a good job of showing this.

Dershowitz does discuss measures that can be taken against terrorism. Here, I think some of what he says is speculative. But the main point of the book is that we need to stop terror from paying. If we can learn just this one lesson that Dershowitz is teaching us, I think the rest of the problems will be much easier to solve.

Rating:
Summary: Very well thought out
Review: This was an extremely interesting book for me. Although, there are some minor contentions I have with some of the points raised in this book, I believe that torture warrants can have its place. One reviewer shocked me by saying even if the fingernail torture would work, she wouldn't care because it is simply 'wrong' for this country to ever do such a thing. The worst wrong is to know some terrorists have crucial information that can save many innocent American lives, but refuse to talk. If it means saving many American lives from hell and murder, it would be more evil to ignore possibly millions of innocents who have a right to live but may not, as oppossed to worrying about the extreme non-lethal pain under a terrorists fingernails who by confessing important information may help the United States to protect its own. Admittily, this country has soul searching to do regarding why the unbelievable has happened and can happen again which may perhaps be as painful as torture itself. But under the criteria outlined in Dershowitz's book, the controlled torture warrants in very extreme cases is the lesser of the two evils by far.


Rating:
Summary: Sobering Debate
Review: 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.