----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:33 PM Subject: Re: Permission Slips
> At 11:45 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote: > >> O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote: > >> > >> "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor > >> would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United > >> States of America. > >> But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the > >> test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people > >> understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to > >> the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." > >> > >> The problem with the above quote is that it is self-contradictory. > >>Either > >> the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to pre-empt *or* the US must > >> pass a "global test" before pre-empting. > > > >No, it's not. > > I am shocked that you would deny this. If the above is not a > contradiction, then the best you can say for it is that it is irrelevant. No, the best I could say is that it is a nuanced position. Let me lay out two extremes and > There are two possibilities: > 1) Kerry's first clause - the US has an unlimited and unfettered right to > preemption. That's not what he said. An unlimited and unfettered right means that the US need not weigh the security or the soverign nature of other nations at all when it pursues it's own interests. (As an aside, the war in Iraq was not a preemptive war. The risk was not imminent enough.) He also used the words necessary to protect the United States. > 2) Kerry's second clause - the right of the US to preemption is limited in > some way - perhaps by the need to pass a "global test." Right....if there isn't a clear and present danger to US security, and other options short of war are open, then, according to this view, the US needs to be able to make a reasonable case for the war. While Gautam and I differed on the prudence of the war, I do think he made a good case for the advisability invading Iraq. Bush clearly did not. Looking at his '03 State of the Union speach and Powell's testamony; the case can be seen, in hindsight, to be built on a number of false statements. He may not have known they were false at the time, but he and Tenet should have known that they _could have been_ false. In other words, instead of making a nuanced argument based on the limited information that was available; presented a non-existant open and shut case for war. > Kerry's second clause presume that there exists at least some case in which > failure to pass a "global test" limits the US's right and ability to > preempt. If no such case exists, that is if every time the US would want > to engage in preemption that it would pass the global test, then Kerry's > talk of a global test is irrelevant. What, if some of the time a global test isn't needed: as in a clear and present danger to the US, and some of the time it is...when there is no clear and present danger. Let me give an extreme example of this. If, in 1962 missle crisis, no missles were yet set up, but the USSR would have a first strike capacity against the US if they were, then a pre-emptive strike by the US would not have to pass any sort of test. Even if there was a good chance that the USSR would respond by invading Europe, this clear and present danger to the US would be sufficient for the US's right of self-defence to take precident over the potential for mass deaths in Europe. It wouldn't matter if the Security Council passed a resolution 14-0 against this (with the US missing the meeting for some unknown reason), we'd still have the right. To give another extreme example, we would not have the right to invade Venezuala because the president thought that securing Venezuela's oil was important for the long term security of the US. Even if he were right, and it would enhance the security of the US (which is obviously debatable), it would not pass any reasonable global test. We'd have no case that we had a fundamental right to overthrow an elected government we didn't like. These two cases are deliberately extreme. Real cases (including the actual 1962 Cuban missle crisis) fall somewhere in between. Iraq was a case that was in between. Both Bush's and Kerry's positions are in between these two extremes....Bush tends towards acting as we will and expecting others to follow, and Kerry tends towards seeking consensus first. But, Kerry's position is no more that the US needs a permission slip than Bush's position is that there should be no constraints at all on the US acting in it's narrow, immediate self interest. > Yes, Kerry is willing to act without UN approval, but only when it passes > some kind of "global test." That's just a fudge for other areas of > international approval. > And why is it just one member of the Security Council being an > obstructionist? Does it apply if two are doing so? Three? I think we have a fundamentally different way of viewing the world; but I think you know that after years of debate. I think you agree with Bush in viewing it in very absolute terms. I differ with Bush and you on this. I think I can make a strong argument that international relations are more analog than digital. I'll agree there are times one has to make a decision, which is a fundamentally digital act. There are times in international relations when, as in engineering, the second best decision now is far better than the best decision a year from now. But, that doesn't mean that the basis for making the decision is well described in black and white terms. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
