The Matador's Cape: America's Reckless Response to Terror

Stephen Holmes is good. This author is solidly grounded in classical liberal democracy and its contextual origins from the enlightenment.

This book is mostly a collection of book reviews strung together with the goal of making sense of the US' foreign policy lurches after 9-11. Even that description makes it sound a little more coherent than it actually is, since there is also an interesting chapter that tries to explicate the mindset of the 9-11 terrorists. Furthermore the books reviewed uneasily fall into two different categories--there are those that are symptomatic of current American mindsets (books by Robert Kagan, Samantha Powers, and Samuel Huntington, for example), and there are books that Holmes considers somewhat useful for illuminating the world (books by Geoffrey Stone or Michael Mann among others). Nevertheless, Holmes is an able, lucid guide through this highly uneven pile of books and ideas. Furthermore, an overarching theme does crystalize. Holmes is insistent on the value of laws, international and domestic, which is not some sort of trick played on the powerful, but instead both creates an enabling context for the exercise of power and a check on the errors rulers are likely to commit. Those who underestimated the virtues of a lawful international (and domestic) order include not only the neocons in the Bush administration but also humanitarian liberals like Samantha Power. Holmes is also potent in describing the way the Bush administration could not let go of cold war binary frameworks to interpret the post-9-11 world, although these were woefully inadequate to the task. My main reservation about the book is that it tends to see the failures of the US/Bush administration entirely as a failure of understanding. There is little political economic texture that might help illuminate why these ideas thrived with so little effective opposition. Rather than requiring a new coalition guided by different principles, Holmes seems to hope that somehow the flawed thinking he documents can be corrected away.

In terrorizing America, Osama Bin Laden only got the ball rolling. Contrary to FDR's famous statement that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, George W. Bush seems to believe that fear should be the prime motivator in engaging Islamic radicals and of them we should be truly terrified. With much of America and Congress cowed, Bush was given carte blanche to push his right wing agenda including massive tax cuts on the wealthy, an erosion of civil rights and a stunning reelection win using a campaign of fear. It was Bush who was instrumental in bringing Bin Laden's dream to fruition by galvanizing the Islamic world against America and driving a wedge between the U.S. and its allies. The author writes, `The strength of the U.S. government, including its ability to project force abroad, not only depends on its reputation for invincibility abroad, it also relies on its domestic legitimacy.' What Bush has managed to do is completely tie down the military, demonstrate to the world its limitations and tar the image of the United States as a beacon for freedom and law. The author devotes an entire chapter to Dept. of Justice lawyer John Yoo and with good reason. Yoo's views on presidential power can best be summed up by a quote from his book `The Powers of War and Peace' saying, "the President's authority under the Constitution did not differ in important measure from that of a king" In other words everything Americans know about checks and balances and the founding fathers desire to rid themselves of a king is wrong. To support his assertion Yoo cherry picks through historical documents, omits contrary facts and distorts reality. Yoo is to political discourse what creationism is to science. What sets Yoo apart, besides the fact that he is the reductio ad absurdum of Conservative thinking on the concept of the Unitarian Executive, is that he actually went to the effort of putting his extremist ideas into a book. Yoo is unashamed in his belief that Nixon was right when he said, `When the president does it that means that it is not illegal' The views Yoo expresses are a mirror held up to the policies practiced by the Bush Administration, that the president in time of war becomes a supreme branch of the government answerable to none. Yoo's most infamous statement, that a president could order the brutal torture of a child in order to extract information from a parent, leads into the author's next point. Why does the Bush Administration seem so adamant about having the ability to torture detainees? Besides ignoring Global Warming, engaging in torture may be the most shameful act the Bush Administration has involved itself in. John Dean speculated that torture is encouraged by the Bush Administration in order to satisfy the leadership's authoritarian egos. Mr. Holmes takes a different approach suggesting that the Bush Administration tortures as a demonstration to our enemies and allies that the gloves are off. The U.S. intends to match ferociousnes

New York University School of Law research director Stephen Holmes presents The Matador's Cape: America's Reckless Response to Terror, a scholarly examination of the failures, mismanagement, and worse rampant in the Bush-Cheney administration's response to the September 11th attacks, especially the deleterious ramifications of the war in Iraq. The Matador's Cape strongly condemns acts of terror and genocide, yet examines with equal suspicion the Bush-Cheney's administration's insistence in sequestering its intelligence and decision-making process from the public - and therefore from any solid opportunity to vette or cross-check its ideologically driven conclusions, with disastrous results. Also discussed is the significant yet by no means unilateral role of religious fundamentalism in propagating terrorism, the impact of rising birthrates in the Islamic world contrasted with falling birthrates in the Western world, the harmful and psychologically twisted effects of the Bush-Cheney administrations embrace of torture, and much more. A measured, well-reasoned and deftly persuasive treatise about the need for an immediate reexamination of America's current administration and foreign policy. Highly recommended.

Stephen Holmes, Professor at the New York University School of Law, has produced an exceptionally good book exploring the tangled arguments for the US and British governments' `war on terror'. He sums up that this war has been a disaster. He describes the US state's "excessively violent, too broadly targeted, and patently counter-productive response to 9/11." He notes the odd assumption that "American immoderation will produce Muslim moderation." As he writes, "America's bellicose response to the 9/11 provocation was not only dishonourable and unethical, given the cruel suffering it has inflicted on thousands of innocents, but also imprudent in the extreme because it was bound to produce as much hatred as fear, as much burning desire for reprisal as quaking paralysis and docility." Holmes demolishes the arguments used to try to justify the shift from getting Al Qa'ida to `America's gratuitous invasion and horrifyingly bloody occupation of Iraq'. He criticises idealist warmongering about the clash of civilisations, humanitarian intervention and democratisation. He notes, "Senators and Representatives who originally voted to approve a war on false pretenses have subsequently hesitated to criticize it, no matter how calamitous the outcome, because after-the-fact dissent embarrassingly reveals their own prior gullibility and lack of foresight." He points out, "In Administration rhetoric, terrorism (a method for waging asymmetric war) is routinely opposed to liberty (a principle for organizing a modern society). The antithesis of liberty, however, is not terrorism but tyranny. So, when the Administration tries to place jihadism in the space vacated by Communism, turning it into the new global enemy of liberty, it confuses both itself and others." Gordon Brown uses the same bad comparison to continue Blair's war policies. Holmes writes, "On the one hand, neoconservatives assert that Islamic radicals despise American values (such as religious toleration), not American policies (such as support for Israel), and deny that America's past behaviour has in any way provoked anti-American violence. On the other hand, they imply that the 9/11 plot was inspired and implemented by terrorists radicalized by Arab autocracies allied with or sponsored by the United States. This suggest precisely that 9/11-style terrorists hate American policies (backing the oppressors of Muslim peoples), not American values. They hate not the principles of American liberty but, rather, America's unprincipled support for tyranny. ... That is to say, jihadism, however repugnant, is not simply `evil' but has a perfectly comprehensible rationale. If we do not honestly grapple with this rationale, we will not be able to reduce the jihadist appeal." He concludes, "the war on terror is bound to fail when conducted, as it has been so far, against the rule of law and outside the constitutional system of checks and balances." "To `go around the law' when combating terrorism is to regress