Why it really is a war on terror

Professor Phillip Bobbitt discusses his new book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st Century.

Today’s segment begins with a straightforward question: What sense it can possibly make to speak of waging war on terror, a mere technique or method, rather than on the terrorists who employ it?

Most people whose views I respect would agree that you can't have a war against terror. They also think that terrorism is a technique and, therefore, always merely a means to an end. The keyword I would withdraw from that proposition is the word always.

Terror has typically been a means to an end in the past, but it can also be for some groups an end in itself. If what you want to do is make people too fearful to exercise choice, to make them just too terrified to exercise their own political, religious, moral, and social choices, then what you want is a state of terror in both senses of the phrase: You want a state that maintains this terrifying atmosphere and you want to induce in the individual a constant presence of fear.

At the link you will find a video of the conversation with Professor Bobbitt of the University of Texas.

Al Qaeda uses terror in hopes of creating chaos which it can then exploit. It has been most effective when used against failed states like Afghanistan and Somalia where there was no outside support for the government. It is too weak to fight conventional forces. That is why it focuses on the mass murder of non combatants.