Terror and Consent The Wars for the Twenty-First Century By Philip Bobbitt 672 pages. $35, Alfred A. Knopf; £25, Allen Lane. The age of "Atlantic man" is conventionally thought to be over. Some, like Parag Khanna, foresee the rise of a "second world" to challenge American hegemony. Others, notably Fareed Zakaria, are harbingers of a "post-American world." The rapid economic rise of China (and India) suggests to many that the geopolitical center of gravity no longer lies somewhere between Washington and London. The embarrassments of the Anglo-American "special relationship" in Iraq have encouraged others (myself among them) to predict a decline of American empire. Philip Bobbitt, however, is Homo atlanticus redux. A dapper Southerner, he divides his time among Austin, Texas; New York, where he teaches law at Columbia; and London, where he has lectured in war studies. His new book, "Terror and Consent," is in many ways a manifesto for a new Atlanticism, not just a reassertion but a reinvention of the dominant role of the trans-Atlantic alliance. "Terror and Consent" is quite simply the most profound book to have been written on the subject of American foreign policy since the attacks of 9/11 - indeed, since the end of the Cold War. It should be read by all three of the remaining candidates to succeed George W. Bush as American president. 3 Page Article Here. A globalists vision of the near future. Hold onto your socks! Only one point seems to elude Bobbitt, and that is what seems to me to be the great defect of any pre-emptive action by a democratic regime: the electoral rewards for success are slight because the public finds it hard to be grateful for a nonevent. Retaliation, by contrast, is a surefire vote-winner. That is a major difficulty, I think, since the United States can scarcely be an effective "claviger" (key bearer) and "steward" of the states of consent if its executive cannot secure enduring domestic consent for its "preclusive" actions. Seems to be a universal problem among the elite, how to overcome democratic instincts. Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about this in "The Grand Chessboard", and the PNACER's talk about it in "Rebuilding America's Defenses. The answer seems simple enough. Another 9/11 or "Pearl Harbor" type event and the people will go along with anything the state demands democratic or not. I'm surprised the obvious answer to this "problem" has eluded these gigantic minds for so long now.