A surprisingly good VSI. I've come close to losing faith with these things many times, but the cover design and lure of knowledge bring me back. And then things like this justify my decision. Townshend is reasonable and anti-reactionary: his sections on state terrorism are excellent, his sections on non-state terrorists are balanced, and he does a great job of splitting hairs between terror and terrorism, and, most usefully, between war (a coercive, fundamentally physical pursuit) and terrorism (a persuasive, fundamentally mental pursuit). If you use violence to disable enemy combatants, you're at war. If you use it on non-combatants, to change someone's mind about something, you're making terror. If you do the latter, and little or nothing else, in order to reach your goals, you're a terrorist.

Also, Townshend writes well enough, and has a terrific ear for other people's phrases, such as PJP Tynan's "men must be aroused... their eyes wounded with the truth, light thrown in terrible handfuls."

On the downside, the final chapter, 'Countering Terrorism,' isn't all that enlightening. ( )

I will probably write a longer review of this book at some time in the future. For now, let me just identify the three principal reasons that I did not like it and why I do not recommend it.

First, the author seems to believe that using lots of "big" or foreign words will give a book a certain academic feel. Before going to law school, I graduated from Northwestern with a political science major, so I've read my fair share of academic works in the social sciences. Some are well-written and engaging; some are not. Sometimes, the use of complex vocabulary helps an author articulate a complex or nuanced point; other times, the vocabulary merely serves as a barrier between the author and the reader. Unfortunately, this book fell into that latter category.

Second, the author works so hard to define terrorism (or, more precisely, define what is not terrorism), that, by the end, the reader is left with the impression that terrorism doesn't really exist in any real signifcant way (despite what they see on TV every night). It often seems as if the author has an excuse or explanation for virtually all modern (i.e., post-Russian Revolution) terrorism. Thus, I never felt as if I was getting well-rounded examination of the issue; instead, it often felt as if I was reading an apology on behalf of certain poor misguided people who, in the author's view, never did much real damage, anyway.

Finally (and most troubling to me), was the author's seeming willingness to equate the actions of the US, Israel, and pre-Israeli Zionists to those of Hezbollah and Hamas (in fact, I don't think that he ever even mentioned the PLO, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, or the Muslim Brotherhood). At one point, the author actually praises Hezbollah's "military" campaign and contrasts it to the "indiscriminate" actions of the US and Israel in Lebanon (not the 2006 war). In other words, Townshend appears to live in that alternate universe where wrong it right, evil is good, and blowing up a bus or attacking a Passover seder is acceptable.

For a short introduction to terrorism look elsewhere.

(If I get around to writing a longer examination of this book on my blog, I'll update this review.) ( )