Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution--and How It Can Renew America
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
by Thomas L. Friedman
Buy it
05/30/2008
Philip Bobbitt
A conversation with author Philip Bobbitt
Keywords:
A conversation with author Philip Bobbitt about his book "Terror and Consent"
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
This was a great interview. There is nothing sophmoric about this man or his understanding of any discipline. If anything he has that rare ability to see where different studies interesect with each other. That coupled with humility and the ability to look at an issue outside political confines makes him rank pretty high on the list of people I will really listen to. Hope you have him back, Charlie.
I have not read Profesor's Bobbitt, new book, but I did read "The shield of Achiles". Profesor Bobbitt is one of the clearest thinkers in our time, able to see things with great perspective. The shieled of Achiles, should be required reading for all, for it is one of the great books of our time. Read it, it will change your view of the world, history, and war.
OCCASIONALLY, RECENTLY, SOMETIMES UNEVENLY, BUT MORESO, FINALLY, _*EVEN CHARLIE "NOBLE CAUSE APLOGETICS" ROSE*_ IS STARTING TO CHALLENGE ESTABLISHMENT CLAIMS ABOUT IRAQ! (Let's see what he does with the upcoming George "head-up-his-butt" Will.) I've heard just bits and pieces, in the background, of what Philip Bobbitt said on The Charlie Rose Show. I usually don't listen to more than bits and pieces in the background when there's one of those usual really establishment pundits -- CHARLIE'S TYPICAL FARE -- THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE WE USUALLY SEE ALL THE TIME SAYING, IN GENERAL LOCKSTEP, THE SAME KINDS OF THINGS/EXCUSES THEY SAY ALL THE TIME -- THE SAME SELF-REINFORCING CIRCLE OF PEOPLE & PUNDITS THAT GOT US INTO THIS MESS -- regurgitating the *usual* establishment after-the-fact/failure apologetics about the U.S.-UK war in Iraq: WOULDA, COULDA, SHOULDA... When not even Bobbit, of course, could defend the totally discredited claim (most recently discredited by British fmr UN Ambassador Sir Jeremy Greenstock on Charlie's show) that the U.S. went to war in Iraq over WMDs (Greenstock said that Bush & Blair *KNEW* that Saddam had no nukes), now Bobbit says that the war "was sold on the wrong reason" -- and that it should have been sold on the claim that the U.S. was going to bring the Iraqis "a better way of life". Well, (1) gee, only diehards in the U.S. believe that canard. (2) Empires don't go (or try to) conquer so-called "3rd World" countries to bring their people "a better way of life": empires go (or try to) conquer "3rd World" countries to rip off their resources and/or exploit their virtually/literally peasant labor -- i.e., go to war to benefit the *empire*, NOT the neo/colonized people. (3) NEVER in the history of the U.S. has the U.S. govt *EVER* gone to direct/proxy/covert war with a "3rd World" country for the purposes of bringing that country "a better way of life", or even for the purposes of just bringing them democracy. The U.S. has often *overthrown* democracies/democrats in the "3rd World" and, instead, propped up dictatorships, even and especially in the Middle East. (4) The American people would have never supported a huge expensive war in Iraq to bring Iraqis "a better way of life". If so, the U.S. could have launched a war against North Korea -- who OPENLY BOASTED of *their* nuclear weapons, as well as successfully tested one, and regularly shot off test missiles to boot -- and who said that they (the govt of N.K.) "WOULD BURRY THE WEST COAST OF THE U.S. IN A NUCLEAR LAKE OF FIRE" if the U.S. attacked -- to bring the people of North Korea (who live under much harsher conditions than the average Iraqi did under, originally *our/the U.S.* boy, Saddam) "a better way of life". And finally, (5) Even if the anti-imperialist resistance and so-called "al-Qaeda" were defeated in Iraq, with the huge loss of life and suffering that the U.S. has rained down on and brought to the Iraq people for over a half-decade now, with over a million Iraqis dead, at least a million Iraqis wounded, the Iraqi medical care system all-but-destroyed (including under the prior indiscriminate sanctions), and millions of Iraqis turned into refugees, the Iraqi govt turned into a sectarian religious govt *by the U.S.*(!!), there is no way this elective U.S.-UK war could ever be called "a success": at some point, when most of the killing finally stops, it could only be called, at last, over.
To TABS: Consider in the past tense the stresses and strains put on the world's resources by the conspicous consumption and wanton waste of the U.S.A. that led to the conflicts around the world. Greed combined with aggression took its toll on Central and South America, Africa and the Middle East, for the benefit of the American Economic Hit Men and the consumers here. Almost half of the cars on the planet are here in the U.S.A. Hopefully a defintition of "standard of living" will not be defined by the same terms around the world. Let's hope that issues regarding pollution, conservation and energy use are handle MUCH BETTER by others. The role model of this country is not to be admired. Waste not, want not is a maxim that was forgotten long ago.
Professor Bobbit in his dialogue with Charlie Rose presents a kind, liberal view of the wars of the 20th century in citing Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man," a book that few people have read in depth, much less understood. Without reading Dr. Bobbit's new book, which I will try to obtain through the local library, it seems he has worked diligently to support what he believes was Mr. Fukuyama's thesis, and a party line that has been in the State Department for years: That there are currents of history, and that Hegelian analysis is needed in order to understand world conflict at this point; at least to understand those who oppose our interests as a free, law - abiding people in a society that encourages economic and social progress and the rule of law. Actually, even the people who currently practice Hegelian analysis in places like western Europe and the former communist countries, and places like China and Venezuela would probably find fault in Hegel being used in the way Dr. Bobbit has used him. Dr. Bobbit really is giving us an historical and evaluative account of past wars from the perspective of a New Yorker, that which probably corresponds to the liberal attitude of anyone from any cosmopolitan capital on the globe, including Bei jing and Moscow. Stories and analyses like that of Dr. Bobbit are without a doubt welcome in western society where different interpretations of history are welcome, though his gist is clearly a liberal one and is a reason for more rightist (not that righteous indignation, but "rightist") thinking people to stay out of Columbia. It is difficult to wonder even why Dr. Bobbit presented his book apparently within Mr. Fukuyama's framework as the story he gave about how the text came together and was published is unabashedly iconoclastic (use another term here, if you like).
Who is this "we" that so many of Charlie's so- called 'experts" use to conjure up a national collectivity based upon this particular government's misdeeds, miscalculations, deceptions, lies, and inanities? Is this "we" the defense and oil industry executives making billions off the war in Iraq, the over-compensated politicians who send other people's children to fight wars to which they would not send their own children, those who opposed a war in Iraq from day one, or those who think George Bush has been doing God's work?
There really isn't anything new that Mr Bobbit has postulated. Warfare or conflict between nation states was fought in symmetrical or in quantitative fashion until the USSR fell in 1990. With the fall of the USSR a new dynamic took place where warfare and conflict has become more asymmetrical and multidimensional in nature. The mistake that the leadership in the USA made was still thinking in a symmetrical, quantitative fashion with its reliance on technology as being the pinnacle of that train of thought. President Clinton represented the American peoples desire to party like they didn't have a care in the world. September 11th, 2001 was the event that brought the American people back to the realities of the world they live in. Mr Bobbit does fail to understand that ultimately Al Qaeda is basically a anti economic globalization terror network. However the biggest problem in this new epoch that Mr Bobbit failed to address is global overpopulation and the stresses and strains that it will put on the resources of the planet to sustain, especially with the increase in standard of living expectations through out the world. And on we go.
Perhaps due to inattention on my part, I have not heard the premise that a second attack by Al Queida in the United States has been avoided, in part, due to the punishing response our military is capable of and has demonstrated. Al Quedia has required a home base that is supported or accepted by a ruling group or governments such as the Taliban, Packistan, etc.. These groups or governments have taken in account the potential impact of military and economic consequences exacted by the coalition and UN. This concern may also serve as a basis for Iran to stiffle an all out attack upon the Iraqi government by agents and sponsored shites. The military option could be executed upon any government or country that served as the base for the next attack which means that the "base" would be reduced to most utilities and transportation systems being destroyed. Daily life and business as previously enjoyed would no longer exist. This would cause the "base" country to caution all groups threatening terrorists activities to understand that they would no longer be tolerated or welcome if they draw the attention of the US Forces as a result of a terrorist attack. So far so good. Good thing we responded to the Taliban and Al Queida when we did.
Nothwithstanding this guy has credentials up the kazoo, and has written ad nauseum, I don't get the slightest feeling that he understands either history or philosophy, or religion or economics for that matter. He may not even understand the difference between philosophy and history. Or if he does understand any of these things, it appears to be in only the most sophomoric manner. He has something in pointing out that corporations are undermining nation states, but this has been fairly commonly understood for at least a century.
Well, Bobbitt must be the most incoherent guest I've ever seen on CR. He seems to have utterly confused himself.
Charlie, Don't forget a cup of poison could be considered a weapon of mass destruction. Bobbitt made many strong ideas. I wish you and other members of the media (and politics) would listen to him with an open mind. And that you would through your support to our troops and give them the respect they deserve. If someone tries to report something positive that our troops are doing, I hear Nancy Pelosi saying no way. Philip Bobbitt made some good points. I wish he would be listened to by some of those who were elected to serve us.