Rating: 
Summary: Propaganda within democracy at its best
Review: Elshtain completely oversimplifies the reasons why we were targeted and naively (or manipulatively) claims that we are hated simply because of who we are, and not for what our government does. Perhaps foot soldiers think this way, but those at the top of the food chain have legitimate grievances. Surely this well educated woman is aware of our transgressions, and we are left wondering what her true intentions are.
If you enjoy being brainwashed, by all means, buy this book. But if you want an honest critique of the war on terror, check out 9-11 by Noam Chomsky.
Rating:
Summary: Embarrassing
Review: Embarassingly bad, this book shows that just because your an academic, does not mean you have anything worth saying. I have three problems with this book:
1. Her arguments don't follow her line of reasoning. I will give her credit for laying out a framework to guide her arguments, though she fails to back them in my view.
2. She uses newspaper articles as primary sources. I learned in junior high school that this is a no no. I'm a little frightened that this "academic" teaches young and old people at a major university, probably "requiring" them to read this book.
3. She claims to speak from an American point of view, which seems to me that of a white, well to do perspective. Her profound lack of history and knowledge of the different cultures in this country make her arguments offensive. Thank god for the library. I couldn't stand to have such poor writing in my house for more than two days.
Rating: 
Summary: Thoughtful analysis of a familiar moral dilemma
Review: Flash back 2000 years. This time, instead of finding a victim robbed and beaten on the side of the road, the Good Samaritan happens along while the robbery is taking place. What should he do? This is the problem -- the unique moral responsibilty of a country powerful enough to inflict violence on terrorists in proportion to the violence they inflict on the innocent -- that Elshtain addresses in this book. Elshtain argues that we face a new political reality after 9/11. Terrorism reaches its objectives through violence against civilian non-combatants. She applies just war theory to argue that in such circumstances, nonviolence may be the immoral response. Christian charity may require that we act with force to defend innocent third parties even if we reject self-defense as immoral. Is this a new idea? Consider any of the many popular films in which the villain, knowing that the hero would willingly sacrifice his own life, instead points his gun at the hero's wife, child or friend to force him to cooperate. National Lampoon once ran a cover that said "Buy this magazine or we'll kill this dog." Elshtain's book gives us a rigorous intellectual framework to justify our gut response to these situations. As to more conventional interventions, such as in Iraq, Elshtain argues that when a government is unable or unwilling to satisfy the first responsibility of any state anywhere -- to uphold justice -- then other governments may be justified in stepping in to restore, at a minimum, justice based on the rule of law. A new paradigm, perhaps, and potentially a slippery slope, but the new world after 9/11 requires that we learn to walk that slope without losing our balance.
Rating:
Summary: Cogent, well-reasoned defence of defence!!
Review: I may well be one of the last people who should be giving this book 5 stars. First, I'm a libertarian whose generally skeptical of military action. Second, as this book is largely about just war theory in the christian tradition, it should be noted that I am a non-beleiver. This book, though, is a rarity. It is well argued, is assertive yet cautious, and unlike so many others on both sides of the issue, does not degenerate into an empty rhetorical minefield. What the book is about is using just war theory, a system in christian ethical philosophy that aims at deciphering moral from immoral war, and applying this theory to the war on terror. The question: Why do we fight? The answer: Because if we didn't, either we or many innocents in the middle-east would experience far worse brutality than we would by intervening now. Again, while I'm skeptical of military intervention unless for the most extraordinary reasons, this book has gone far in forcing me to reconsider why we are doing what we are doing. Contrary to much propoganda, we are in fact conducting ourselves fairly, judiciously, and cautiously. In fact, one of the most noticable things she does is to contrast the way radical islam (and she carefully contrasts this with Islam) conducts itself with the way we conduct ourselves. It is night and day. Terrorism kills indiscriminately: if you are western, you die. We are judicious and discriminate if we must kill: We kill terrorists and do everything possible to ensure that civilians live. Radical islam does not 'talk it over' before killing. We do - even if the left feels stifled when voicing opinion, they may still do so and sometimes to great effect. We use force via an organized army and recognize international statutes of war ethics. Radical islam does not. The differences go on and on. While I remain unconvinced of the Iraq war (which this book does not address as it was written previous to it) Mrs. Elshtain's arguments on the moral reasons for us to engage in the war on terror are thoughtful, intellegent (not hot-air rhetoric like, say, Sean Hannity) and extremely insightful. It has forced me to re-examine my (former?) positioin and it may do the same for you.
Rating:
Summary: Elshtain is to Chomsky as Superman is to Bizarro.
Review: I.e., she's honest and responsible. Her argument reflects it, too. It'd be helpful to have some understanding of just war doctrine before reading this book, but that's no great hurdle, because you can pick up the basics of just war theory, from a lot of different sources, in about an hour or so. But even without that, you'll get whole lot of value out of this for such a brief book. Her arguments are cogent and accessible, and at the same time they plumb centuries of moral thought to put our current war against terrorism into historical and moral context. If you know why you want to win the war on terrorism, and now you want stronger answers as to how and why we SHOULD fight it, this is the book for you. Seriously, if you're on the fence, spend the twenty bucks. It'll be more than worth it.
Rating:
Summary: Justice is the only valid weapon
Review: In 1998 Osama bin Laden declared war against America, denouncing US occupation of the lands of Islam in the Arabian Peninsular and the Muslim obligation to kill and plunder pagans. In the west we find it difficult to accept such language at face value but bin Laden and his followers mean it when they call westerners 'infidels'. Bin Laden and his followers also mean it when they talk of an obligation to kill as a recruitment video shown in a Finsbury, North London mosque shows disarmed enemies being decapitated with the commentary "You have to kill in the name of Allah until you are killed. Then you will win your place in paradise. The whole Islamic world should rise up to fight all the sick unbelievers. The flag of Jihad will be forever held high. Our enemies are fighting in the name of Satan. You are fighting in the name of God." Radical Islamists want to impose their official religion, through terror if necessary. The message that Jean Bethke Elshtain wants us to understand is that in bin Laden and his followers we face a new kind of enemy; that those who live in freedom must sometimes fight for the right to live in freedom; that with America's great power comes even greater responsibility; that we must fight - not to conquer - but to defend who and what we are. The Pope's response to September 11 may be summed up in these words: "When terrorist organizations use their own followers as weapons to be launched against defenseless and unsuspecting people, they show clearly the death wish that feeds them. Terrorism springs from hatred, and it generates isolation, mistrust and closure ... Terrorism is built on contempt for human life. For this reason, not only does it commit intolerable crimes, but because it resorts to terror as a political and military means it is itself a true crime against humanity." Martyrs die for a religious belief or cause and to claim that a martyr can be a suicide bomber or mass murderer is a corruption of the word. Terrorists are those who kill people they consider their enemy; terrorists sow terror; terror subjects its would be victims to paralyzing fear; terrorists are not interested in the subtleties of diplomacy or in compromise solutions. Terrorism is extremist and Islamist fundamentalism is extreme. The Western politics of negotiation and compromise do not work with terrorism. President Bush distinguished carefully between Islam as a great religion and terrorists who are in effect trying to highjack Islam itself. Islam is as fractured as Christianity and there seems to be no spokesman who speaks in the name of Islam. Who governs in the name of Islam? We hear continually the voice of the Islam extremists but seldom hear the voice of those who truly represent Islam. How do you respond to those who have declared you a mortal enemy because you hold radically different views on constitutional rights, moral equality, separation of church and state, and equality of sexes? There is a great deal at stake in the current struggle, and there are values worth defending. But how we choose to defend these values is all-important, for in fighting terror that knows no limits, there are limits we ourselves must observe. That is what this book is all about - seeking the correct response to our terrorist enemy. The overwhelming reaction to September 11 was to speak of justice and that is what the author proposes - justice as represented by a blindfolded figure holding balanced scales. Elshtain draws on Augustine to define the principles, but refers to Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr, who confronted political evil in the World War II era, to define the practice of confronting the enemy. Tillich broadcast 112 addresses into occupied Europe to help German Christians understand what the Third Reich was doing, saying that Germans had to stand against the terror and confront the Jewish question; he was clear that terror had to be fought but without hatred. Niebuhr maintained that the world must be engaged; Christians must understand that their own freedom is entangled with political realities. One cannot withdraw from responsibility by refusing to confront the inevitable moral ambiguities of politics. In his essays "Love your Enemies" and "To Prevent the Triumph of an Intolerable Tyranny" Niebuhr makes the case for struggling against a determined foe intent on our harm and destruction without hating that foe. If you would like to learn what bin Laden and his followers are trying to do to the West and if you suspect that justice is the only valid weapon we can use to combat terrorism this is an excellent book to study.
Rating: 
Summary: Whose War, Whose Terror
Review: Just War Against Terror by Jean Bethke Elshtain is a feeble attempt to justify the Bush administration's policies. She follows Augustine from the City of God in her just war arguments. The City of God was written to point us to a higher City not to serve as an apology for the City of Rome or the City of Washington DC. Augustine wrote the City of God to defend Christianity against the accusation that it was the cause of Rome's downfall. Augustine could not have conceived of modern warfare where one country like the U.S. has incredible asymetrical power over its hapless enemies. Elshtain stretches the distinction between combatants and noncombatants to cover situations in war no longer applicable in the real world of modern weapons and modern warfare. What is the morality of fighting a force such as the Iraqi army made up mostly of conscripts who face a bullet in the back from Husseins forces or obliteration from the air by bombs from the United States? How are these human beings to be classified ? Combatants or noncombatants ? Doesn't the use of precision bombing actually make it worse for these human being ? Is slaughter a legitimate means of fighting war.
Elshtain also praises and accepts everything Bush and the Pentagon say as honest and noble. There is absolutely no consideration for the military, economic, and social conditions in the world except to say that nothing ever justifies terrorism. She moves from Camus, Augustine, and Arendt to Cluaswitz. She accepts the latter's idea that war is the continuation of diplomacy and politics by other means. Terrorists have no politics except to destroy and that is what makes it evil per se.
Elshtain says that both pacifism and realpolitics are wrong. What is needed is the way of Just War theory. I think her vision of the world is like watching children playing in a sandbox. Some children are acting like bullies. It is so easy to distinguish the good kids from the bad ones. If the world were as simple as Elshtain sees it there would be no need for theories. All that is needed would be an adult to get the bullies out of the sandbox.
What Elshtain lacks is a vision to evaluate war with a "whole new attitude", called for by the American Bishops in their 1983 document, The Challenge To Peace." This is the real burden we all need to shoulder,--- not the "Burden of American Power In A Violent World, embolden on the cover of her book Just War Against Terror. American power is part of the problem not part of the solution to a just and peaceful world.
Rating:
Summary: An important contribution to the democratic process
Review: Just War Against Terror is a brilliant book. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I have been shocked by the Left's response to the slaughter of more than 3,000 innocent people. Apparently, Prof. Elshtain, no right-winger by any means (read Democracy or Trial or Jane Adams and the Dream of American Democracy), is also appalled. So she wrote a book in which she courageously challenges the dogmatic anti-Americanism of her fellow academics and other members of the Left. Using honest, fact-based reasoning, Prof. Elshtain shows how the Left ignores or distorts facts and uses evasive language and flawed analogies to avoid the work of actually reasoning (among other false practices). It is a great pleasure to see the steamroller of Prof. Elshtain's logical arguments utterly flatten the accepted orthodoxies of the Left. More importantly, however, Prof. Elshtain provides a logical/moral framework, in plain, accessible language, for analyzing whether the use of force is just. She uses this framework to assess the justness of the US response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Although she ultimately determines that the US acted justly in Afghanistan, using her analytical framework does not require that you reach the same conclusions that she reached. She is not trying to channel the debate but rather broaden it by injecting honest analysis. As the debate that began on September 11, 2001, continues, this book will become extremely important as it helps to shape that debate because of the power of its logic and honesty. READ this book. Whether you agree or disagree with its conclusions, you will find yourself better equipped to evaluate the arguments raised by all sides.
Rating:
Summary: just being against terrorism dose not make the war just.
Review: The author oversimplified in analysing a more complicated topic than she can handle. Just like what I put down as the title of this review: Being against terrorism only does not justify every single military action against any suspect of your choice. The author needs more training in the areas of law and morality.
Rating:
Summary: Best book I Read This Year
Review: This may be a stretch for some but worth the effort. Elshtain upends the moral universe by suggesting the obvious. Those outside the academic/seminary world may not see the significance but this is a great book.
| 
