The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in an Age of Terror ... (ISBN 0691117519)

Overrated:
This book seems to be about an interesting topic, namely what ethics ought we adopt if we are faced with threats of terror? Ignatieff asks "What lesser evils may a society commit when it believes it faces the greater evil of its own destruction?" And he says this "question must not only be asked. It must be answered." I disagree. I think Ignatieff displays an enormous amount of shallow thinking in this book. I think his question is not that good, need not be asked, and need not be answered. What we ought to be interested in is the question of what rational people ought to expect people like us to do when faced with threats of terror. It's a slightly different question, although I admit that Ignatieff does deal with it to some extent. By "people like us," I mean just about any group or nation, rational or irrational. Ignatieff wanders on, describing various threats to people and governments as well as the reactions to these threats. In many cases, the threats were overrated, making the reaction look overly intense. Ignatieff makes the point that at the time, the severity of each threat was not easy to determine. The author says that "when civil libertarians try to explain why their own governments adopt repressive measures, they often blame unscrupulous politicians exploiting terrorism to pursue their own agendas. This fails to explain why politicians often get away with it." This makes a good point, but it does not go far enough. The public often agrees with the politicians, but why? Do such policies merely fit public agendas or are they in some sense the best options? Ignatieff is not good at answering this. Ignatieff also says that terrorism generally works as an ancillary tactic, a "shortcut" to the proper (although uncertain) strategy of peaceful political mobilization. And he gives some examples of this. One is the Arab use of terror against Israel, which has not caused an Israeli surrender, has not caused Israelis to stop debating what to do, has not caused Israelis to abandon asking about the ethics of what they are doing, but has caused Israelis to fight back in a fairly united manner. This also makes a good point but does not go far enough. We need to see just how severe the threat is (destroying Israel, getting rid of human rights for Middle Eastern Jews, and so on) to appreciate what Israelis are up against and to see if the strategy of peaceful political mobilization would have much chance. But Ignatieff does not get into this either. The author discusses the terrorist argument that "the weak must have the right to fight dirty; otherwise the strong will always win." Of course, this is nonsense. The strong can't possibly win a fight to oppress others in a fair world without using violence. And even if the strong do use violence against those who fight "clean," they will lose their share of wars. Ignatieff did not think about this enough. At one point, Ignatieff says there are six kinds of terrorism! 1) Terror aimed at the overthrow of a state 2) Terror aimed at the promotion of a single cause 3) Terror aimed at the overthrow of a colonial regime 4) Separatist terror 5) Anti-occupation terror 6) Terror against a global power He later adds nihilistic terrorism as pretty much a separate category. But I am not sure I like these categories very much. The Ku Klux Klan, while it might get put into one of these groups (say 2 or 4), is simply a racist terrorist organization. It should be described as such, but the author ignores it. The Stern Gang, an organization Ignatieff alludes to, certainly could be put in almost any of these categories, but in fact its most important goal was to get immigration permits for Jews! That's basically a group that wanted to obtain a specific human right; to lump it with all sorts of other "causes" is not very helpful. Ignatieff says it is possible to justify armed struggle in defense of self-determination only if the group's just claims have been met by violence, if the refusal to meet the claims is systematic, enduring, and unlikely to change, if the claims are fundamental to the survival of the group, and if the struggle observes the laws of war and the rule of civilian immunity. I'm not so sure I agree. By the way, I think Israel's claim to self-determination comes pretty close to meeting these requirements. Yes, as the author says, there were (pre-state) incidents such as the King David hotel and Deir Yassin, but I think these may well meet these criteria as well. Perhaps we ought to call the Irgun members "freedom fighters," not terrorists. By the way, Ignatieff comes up with a truly silly statement about Arab and Israeli claims to land being equal. That is nonsense. Arab land is Arab. Israeli land is Israeli. Disputed land is disputed. In none of these regions are all claims equivalent, morally or otherwise. Now, is terrorism often directed not only at an oppressor but at one's own people? Does it spur others to join you? Can it get others to attack one's whole society, forcing some neutrals to side with you? Does it involve a war against "collaborators" in one's society who oppose you, and does it suppress political dissent in your own population? Yes, and Ignatieff says so. Should one negotiate with terrorists (or with supposedly peaceful supporters of terrorist goals)? Are there really serious differences between freedom fighters and terrorists? The author discusses these questions as well. This is an interesting book, but I think it needs considerably more thought and work.

Worth Reading:
This is a well written book. Its basic theme is that democratic societies may have to, from time to time, suspend certain rights and freedom in order to deal with threats to their citizens or their very existance. The key presented is that these suspensions be limited by their scope in time and ultimately subject to review by the judiciary, democratic process, the public and the press. The subject of torture comes up but what I found most interesting was the discussion of how we might have to react to the threat of nuclear or biomedical terrorism. As the cost of these technologies comes down it becomes more possible for society to be threatened by small groups or radical nations acting directly or anonymously through surrogates who would not be deterred by the threat of mutual self destruction. Overall the message is that these are ethical issues that we must, even imperfectly, need to work out. Ignatieff's book does a good job of laying out directions of discourse. We may not get it right and we may have to even choose to do wrong for the greater good but the fact that we struggle with the question makes us a better society.

Intriguing discussion of civil rights and governmental responsibilities in times of terrorism:
The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks threatened Americans' safety, and strained the U.S.'s judicial and social interpretations about how to respond to a national emergency. Civil rights and constitutional experts from both conservative and liberal camps had to respond to the country's new "Homeland Security" practices dealing with surveillance and detention. Their reactions involved everything from the right of habeas corpus to the U.S. Constitution and the rights of captured combatants. Michael Ignatieff covers this heady area in essays adapted from a lecture series. The topic is crucial, but alas the book is dense reading. However, the author's interpretations of civil and legal issues, constitutional law, the rule of law, and the ethics and morality of fighting terrorists will deeply intrigue those in related fields. getAbstract considers this an important book for lawyers and academics, if not casual readers. Ignatieff shows that balancing the rights of those criminals known as terrorists against the safety of citizens is an issue society will debate hotly for years to come.

Fuzzy on the whole "good-bad" thing:
Here we go. Yes, the book is well written (maybe it's pointless to say it's preachy given the subject matter, but the narrative tone is preachy, too). It presents thoughtful arguments and deep considerations of many and varied aspects of specific recent conflicts. The ultimate and deep flaw of the book and in the author's thinking is at the heart of the author's proposed solution for many of the world's conflicts: Leviathan. Derived from a biblical monster, the concept of Leviathan as Ignatieff presents it is an omnipotent global arbiter to intercede in local conflicts when the other moral safeguards fail, such as neighboring nantions and states near places of conflict and genocide. Liberals (Ignatieff among them)always tout their philosophy as the most democratic and freedom- nurturing, and see their ideas and "mission" as those that prevent and combat oppression. It would appear contrary to liberalism, then, to propose tha creation of an omnipotent global military power. It would also seem contradictory to support and praise any despotic or tyrranical regime, but Fidel Castro and his locked-down Cuba are always spoken of with respect, and always held up as an example of a small country standing up to the democratic USA's oppression and imperialism. I can't read Ignatieff's book without getting a cold streak hearing his earnest, hopeful imaginings of a Leviathan rising up and promulgating the liberal moral and socio-political standard around the world. There's something insidious in the inherently subversive viewpoint of liberalism that functions on the basis of saying that every other viewpoint is somehow immoral or evil or greedy, eroding the validity of the premises of opposing views and never actually answering the questions raised. A Leviathan operating under that standard is the most total and direct path to global oppression and supression of any ideas that do not stem from a liberal basis. It is good and necessary to analyze the thorny moral issues associated with comflicts around the world, but it becomes a moot gesture when the effort is undertaken from a moral standpoint rooted in a very specific political ideology (here postmodern socialist liberalism, which espouses social and cultural relativism, a standpoint that essentially has no standpoint on morality). Liberalism wants to seem the most good, truthful, just and honest political philosophy, but it has injected itself surreptitiously into so many aspects of scholarship and society, into fields such as history, archaeology and anthropology, where a narrow political philosophy has no place, unless the purpose is to place a liberal interpretation on the subjects and findings at play. This is revisionism, and it ill serves history. I won't even get into journalism; it's not pertinent to the book. I recommend the book, definitely, but I suggest you keep an open mind and stay informed. Just like the news, get every viewpoint: watch CNN and Fox. Read the liberal and conservative side of an issue. Get foregn views about domestic happenings. Watch out for leviathan. Especially coupled with big government, gun control and redistribution of wealth, you might find as I have that liberalism is as divisive, flawed and frankly, dangerous, as rampant conservatism with its fascistic tendencies.

Brilliant:
I've only read a few sections out of his book, and now I am determined to invest a few days out of my upcoming break to read his entire book. The man is brilliant, absolutely brilliant. The book, by all means, sheds light on matters that have most people in the dark. Definitely a worth while read.