Bobbitt's book, with its repetitive, self-referential structure and elegant literary ornamentation, resembles another Baroque production, the New Science of Vico. Maybe that's why the author's analysis is most convincing when he's talking about the 17th Century. The dish beneath the garnish is quite another meat, however; for the book's center is a hypertrophied version of a business strategy paperback like Reinventing the Corporation or Positioning. When discoursing about the history of the relationship between the nature of the state and the practice of war and diplomacy, Bobbitt sounds like an academic. When he plumps for his view of the present and heralds the somewhat anticlimactic wonders and challenges of what he calls the Market State, he sounds like a flack for the Chamber of Commerce struggling to generate some enthusiasm for the free enterprise system.

The Shield of Achilles is a very worthwhile read, but not because its conclusions wash. Reading a book like this, which, sarcasm aside, is a very intelligent production, is valuable more as an occasion for thought than as a historical TOE. What's vividly missing from the book is finally more important than what is in it. Bobbitt managed to write a 900-page book about the state, warfare, and politics without saying anything about who benefits and who loses. He is often very good about the what and the how of history but the question of who is absent without leave. Thus he manages to write about the contemporary situation at great length without noting that in America, at least, the disparity of wealth between the rich and poor is increasing markedly so that a regime supposedly dedicated to increasing opportunity is actually reducing opportunity for most people. He claims that the media are becoming more democratic when, in fact, five corporations control something like 80% of airtime. There is also no mention of the enormous growth of prisons in the U.S., a social fact that must have some relation to the author's thesis. More generally, Bobbitt writes about tendencies like deregulation or privatization as if the intentions of their promoters were irrelevant. It is also puzzling that Bobbitt seems to think that the transition from what he calls the nation state to the market state continues the Cold War triumph of democratic institutions when political participation rates and even the 2000 American election suggest that democracy is in general retreat.

Those who take the time to wade through this book are in for quite a learning experience. Bobbitt's unique melding of strategy and constitutionalism offers deep insights into the nature of the international system and the future of American power. The chapter on the War in Bosnia - comparing the reaction of the great powers to that of Kitty Genovese's neighbors as she was being murdered in Queens, NY - is gut-wrenching and thought-provoking, and constitutes one of the most engrossing 50 pages that I have ever read. The choices that Bobbitt offers policy-makers are stark and of fundamental importantce - it is a shame that few will take the time to consider the long-term implications of their often hasty short-term decision-making.

This is a most impressive work. It is monumental -- intellectual, deep thinking, not light reading at all. Bobbitt starts with a premise with which I most heartily agree: humanity is entering a whole new era. He sees an evolution of states over the past millennium, each associated with a type of warfare and international environment, transitioning from one to the next due to an epochal war...this is a masterful work. Reading his words, listening to his thoughts, seeing how he structures his arguments, grasping the depth and breadth of his vision and how he pulls it all together into a single, coherent set of ideas, I am struck by the averageness of my intellect and almost overwhelmed by his.
His is profound thinking with far-reaching implications. It strikes home in our post-9/11 awakening. (Its publication was coincidental.) It takes longer to read than its 800+ pages would indicate because one must often stop and ponder his words. If you are willing to take this book on, you will be well rewarded. A resounding 5 stars.

At first Constitutional Fate looks much like a typical anthology of the most significant modes of constitutinal argument, for this I must admit the book does a fairly good job. The problem comes at the end; where we must endure an unconnected attempt to give the book purpose. The authors argument is essentially that there is no argument.

Now I must admit I am reading this for a take home final so perhaps I am just a little jaded. For one minuete I think that there is nothing but brilliance in these last few pages; only for seconds later to conclude that it is all just a bunch of smoke.