> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
...
> Oh, but it *was* people like you. And like me. Americans.
>
> Nick
>
> But I'm the one who understands the ambiguity, Nick, while you're only
> condemning those who had to deal with it.
You're making a logical leap. The fact that I have pointed out that we have
supported corrupt regimes with terrible human rights records does not imply
condemnation of those who made the political choice to do so.
Here's an analogy. When firefighters are faced with a house that has been
burning for long enough that it has a high heat load, especially one that is
ready to flash over, the first thing they do is cut open the roof. The
homeowners, seeing this, often are aghast, sometimes very angry, complaining
that the firefighters are only making things worse.
How does one explain the firefighters' action to the homeowners? Your
explanation would seem to me to be, "The firefighter have good intentions
and they are experts, so you should trust them and not criticize." Mine is,
"It is very painful to see even more harm coming to your home, but no one
has figured out a way to vent the heat without doing more damage. If there
were a way, we'd use it."
Of course, the situation is more complex, since there are third parties
involved whose actions are far more destructive than the ones that we would
use ourselves. I'm suggesting not that we made the wrong decisions, but
that your justification, like the first one above, is insensitive at the
least and smacks of arrogance. Richard Butler is a real fighter against
that kind of "you wouldn't understand, so just go along with your leaders
because they have good intentions and know more than you" argument, which he
believes -- and I certainly agree -- is a stumbling block toward
disarmament, not a help.
> You get all the appearance of
> virtue without any of the responsibility - an enviable position,
> but not an
> affordable one when there are consequences to your decision.
I don't see how ignoring the murders of innocents is a way of taking
responsibility. It seems to me that by justifying human rights abuses in
the name of stopping communism or preserving American power is evading
responsibility, not taking it. Isn't that the argument that the supporters
of people like Robert D'Aubisson use? *We* didn't murder Oscar Romero,
D'Aubisson and his death squads did? We just supported him with military
and political aid in the fight against communism, which was a good fight, so
we bear no responsibility for his actions? Doesn't work for me.
> Ambiguity
> means that there aren't clear moral choices. My way is simple. The
> principled and enlightened pursuit of national interests. As Robert Kagan
> argues, the preservation of American power is the foremost duty
> of American
> politics, because only American power can spread our liberal ideals
> throughout the world - making the preservation of that power a moral duty.
Which is it? A simple unambiguous principle -- preserve American power at
all costs -- or an ambiguous one -- preserve American power while doing our
best to act on our principles as we do so, facing up to the fact that often
those ideas conflict with one another.
> The enlightened pursuit of national interests is the most moral way for a
> nation to act, as people from Machiavelli to Robert Kaplan have
> understood.
> Your principles are, as far as I can tell, a matter of moral convenience.
> You get to keep your hands clean and not worry about the rest of
> the world -
> as long as _you_ aren't involved. I have neither sympathy nor
> patience for
> that view. We are involved. When we aren't involved, far worse things
> happen than when we are.
What have I said to suggest not being involved? You seem to be forgetting
that I have been *personally* involved. I haven't heard you say that you've
been to Latin America, met people who have been tortured or had family
members disappeared. Have you been to Chile? I'm sorry, but this seems a
bit hypocritical if you haven't actually been involved yourself. It's most
definitely not all talk for me.
And... did you just hold up Machiavelli as a positive example? Do you know
who "The Prince" was modeled after? The Borgias were among the most
ruthless, corrupt people who ever rose to power, in a time when western
culture was at its most decadent and corrupt. There are things to be
learned from reading Machiavelli, but it is hardly a guide for moral
leadership.
Of course, it fits rather well with the notion that it's okay to murder
religious and educational leaders to preserve political power.
> Americans yes, but not Americans who are very much like me. Americans who
> were so twisted by their own perspective on their country and so
> filled with
> self-loathing that they would rather abandon millions of people
> to death by
> genocide than allow their own country to act. I don't really feel that I
> have very much in common with Americans like that. Cambodia stands as the
> best example for why my arguments will work - because I wouldn't have left
> those people to die.
This sounds to me like contempt for vast numbers of your fellow citizens.
> I would have done anything to stop it - including
> working with right-wing dictators who would never, ever, ever have done
> anything that approached that.
I'm assuming you must mean quantitatively, since you have defended our
support of right-wing dictators who most certainly have acted similarly in a
qualitative sense...?
> The pursuit of American national interests
> is a moral obligation upon the American government - in fact, it is the
> _foremost_ moral obligation upon the American government. One of
> the things
> that makes the United States special is precisely the fact that liberal
> ideals and our national interests are in consonance. But not always
> perfectly. The international regime is not a liberal area. Sometimes you
> can't act that way, and to fail to act as you should because it makes you
> uncomfortable is immoral.
Again, contempt for large numbers of fellow citizens, who aren't asking that
we should fail to act. Do you recall anyone making the argument about
Cambodia, "We're uncomfortable with taking any action there." I see you
extending this fallacy to me, personally, when you claim that I would have
sat on my hands when it comes to Latin America. I didn't sit on my hands, I
went there and learned, first-hand, which has a lot to do with why I'm not
just dropping this discussion.
Instead of stopping to ask what the alternatives were, you keep implying
that there have only been two choices -- your way or "sit on your hands."
It's never been that simple. It's never even been close to that simple.
Nick
