Book Review on the Third Side by William Ury

It has the capability to really make you think about your life, the function of the United States Government, and the processes and trials our military goes through in and out of a war. This is a book that I would recommend to many people, although it is a very technical and

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

This piece is based off the central theme of A Separate Peace by John Knowles. It is a commentary on the current state of the world but at the same time, on a deeper level, it makes a statement about human nature. The central theme of A Separate Peace is about the inescapable nature of war. It defines war as a central part of human nature and society. War does not only refer to the political state of the world, but also can be broaden to wars between parties, people, and even one’s self.

Throughout her book, O’Leary aims to show how and why government employees are motivated to take the guerrilla government route, sometimes for good reason, other times not so good. O’Leary accounts several guerrilla government stories. Here are summaries of two stories I will discuss.

Through activating fear and anger in the readers, Singer and Potter attempt to spark a reaction against two despicable enemies. Both of these authors use disturbing facts about the situations in their book to cause a uprising of the common people of the Nation. Both authors have an enemy in their book and both of the enemies are powerful organizations who are unharmed by the reaction of just a few people. Big corporations and anti-terrorist organizations hold a lot of power, and can only be effectively confronted by a large group of people. Because of this, these authors use their books as a way to rally people behind an existing movement as a way to keep it alive and to create a group large enough to confront the enemies.

Namely, in that of terrorism and guerrilla warfare- the former being used to critique his actions, and the latter to justify. James N. Gilbert, citing the similarity in Brown’s actions and mentality to those so recently vilified as terrorists, holds to the former case, and argues for more caution in praising those who use unjustified means to achieve ends in line with the moral attitudes of today. With a similar conclusion but contrasting attitude, Ken Chowder agrees with the terrorist charge, but urges for historical context to be evaluated before dismissing the tactic as a necessary evil. Nicole Etcheson, however, argues that John Brown’s motivations prove not those of a terrorist, but of a guerrilla fighter on the frontlines of American values. In this comparison, it is revealed that ignoring cultural convictions of both the unshakable heroism of American icons as well as the inherent evil of acts such as terrorism, as Ken Chowder does, can lead to a more nuanced, objective, and truthful perception of the very human subjects of the

The major themes and arguments within the book consists of the manner of how small war is fought and how some aspects of small wars do not entirely depart from the tradition of war. The first argument is that small wars are nothing new to the American military forces, which departs from the thinking that full-scale war is the norm for the U.S. armed forces. We can see that this is true from their prevalence in the U.S. military history Boot traced out. Thus, small wars are a part of the American military tradition. Another argument is that presidents have always bypassed Congress in deploying forces aboard. This was shown in the Barbary War where President Jefferson bypassed Congress in sending armed forces overseas. Military operations seldom see a formal declaration of war particularly in Third World countries. Not asking for Congressional approval to send in armed forces is part of the American military tradition. The third argument is that in small wars, it is possible to win with only minor mobilization. It is not necessary to use large-scale war methods to fight a small war. The next argument is that occupational forces are necessary after a war to ensure a lasting peace. If one leaves too early, there is no peace. It worked in the Philippines, so officials need to take notice and not send the troops back to America. Thus,

He saw firsthand the devastation that is imposed primarily on civilian populations. He speaks about how liberal, well-ordered societies should treat each other and how they should deal with those societies that are non-well-ordered. He has two nonideal theories. “One kind deals with conditions of noncompliance, that is with conditions in which certain regimes refuse to comply with the reasonable Law of Peoples; these regimes think a sufficient reason to engage in war is that war advances, or might advance, the regimes rational (not reasonable) interests. These are called outlaw states.

Currently, the world is in disagreement over tensions in the Middle East. A divided country of the Syrian government and rebels has caused horrific acts. Acts that the president of the United States deemed necessary for military retaliation. That has sparked the debate on if it was not only justified but ethical to launch tomahawk missiles into war-torn parts of Syria. In an article on the Huffington Post, Dr. Helen Ouyang argues that it was justified and that military intervention is needed. She uses different forms of arguments to draw comparisons of Syria to other countries around the world, dissociate the scenario with the past military struggles and offers many reasons why the benefit will outweigh the cost.

Diverse personal encounters with non-state armed actors animate my research agenda, and I seek to discern the meaning of a picture formed by pieces of a puzzle collected during my years of military service. As a peacekeeper in Kosovo, I witnessed how a random rifle shot could spark a series of reprisals across invisible lines that separated villages. My soldiers and I were almost powerless to stop them. On one hand, our legal mandate prevented our ability to take direct action. One the other, we understood so little about our adversaries we did not fully know which action to take. Subsequent experiences leading soldiers during counterinsurgency efforts in both Iraq and Afghanistan immersed me again in the turmoil created by overlapping networks of non-state armed groups competing for economic, social, and political power. Each incident revealed another piece of the puzzle, but the picture it formed remained unclear. I started to wonder if the pieces actually fit, or if I was putting them together incorrectly.

On page 158, Hedges expresses a very important quote. “We discover in the communal struggle, the shared sense of meaning and purpose, a cause. War fills our spiritual void.” This quote is true in our world because our spiritual beliefs separate us from others and alienate people due to noticeable differences. War helps plug the gap in our spiritual life because we get to spread our beliefs on others and express our opinion to others. War is the beginning o bringing everyone together to a common cause. The cause is to make a difference in the world and to make it a “utopian” society. War expresses the struggle that all of us share. We all form together in war to work for a common cause, fix the wrongs and change the world together. After war,

Violence is inherently flawed. In the immortal words of Gandhi, "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." Therefore the most successful strategy for long-lasting peace and independence is nonviolence. This concept is crucial to understand the history of this time period. Violence and the lack of it, nonviolence plays a major role in the play of this chapter. Many question the practicality of nonviolence: “How can it work?” “Why can't armed and powerful opponents simply kill everyone that doesn't agree with them?” The answer couldn't be simpler: because the people will revolt. A few thousand oppressors wielding violence simply cannot control several million determined people. This lack of control is

Victor Davis Hanson addresses numerous questions concerning the concept of war and its multitude of effects in his article entitled, ‘The Utility of War’. By this extent, he discusses the positive and negative aspects, as well as the reason wars take place, and even how they often end.

Chomsky takes a turn that is someone conservative and attempts to take a neutral position and evaluates some truths that he sees. He takes us through the reason and definitions of terrorism. He uses examples such Nazi Germany and says that terror is more subjective in the sense that when unprovoked, war is terror on that entity such as England trying to push back Germany. Chomsky then takes us through the idea that 9/11 has changed the world. He refutes this idea and says that the only reason that this was a big change was because it happened to America, the center of the world. He gives an example here by showing how the U.S. government interfered in Guatemala by not doing anything about the deaths that were being taken place there as we supplied El Salvador with weapons and ammunition. (pg 192) Chomsky again brings up the idea of state-supported terrorism and gives example after example of how this was played out in Central and Southern America. (Pg193-194) Chomsky jumps into the just war theory here and says that statements about just war theory are made only by empirical forces only justifying war. During this period of time, most of

This contradiction is problematic because the boundaries between the civil and the natural, the domestic and the international, overlap at times (112). For instance, war on the outside invariably affects the civic order on the inside. Because of this contradiction, we are forced to bear the burdens of supporting both orders separately, thus negating the advantages brought by either. We are subject to the vagaries of the international system when it affects civil life, and yet as individuals our hands are tied and we are unable to enjoy natural freedom ourselves because we are also subject to the authority, at times oppressive, of the civil domestic structures (which, as we have seen, fail to protect us from all international affects) (112). Even a state that hopes for the status quo can't count on it ­ because other states won't allow it to remain (114). Peace is often lacking even among virtuous actors, but peace and war are not dichotomous. A state of war results when two actors mutually decide that their existences are incompatible, and each coolly resolves to annihilate the other however possible, a