From: Keith Elis (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Mon Apr 14 2003 - 14:15:21 MDT
Ron wrote:
> When the United Nations showed itself incapable of defending the world
> against Sadaam then it was right and proper for our country to take
him out. Ron h.
I don't know if the President's decisions were 'right and proper'. I
don't even know if such terms have any rigorous definition when applied
to geopolitical events. I don't know what the President knows. But, very
few people would argue that threats to their lives and well-being should
be allowed to multiply. The 'hawks' have a more inclusive view of these
threats than the 'doves'. A national security strategy that includes
pre-emption as a justification for intervention can be said to be
'hawkish' in this sense as it broadens the definition of threat to
include threats that have not yet materialized. Some people don't buy
that a possible future threat is a threat now. Some people do. And some
are in the middle. Regardless of where you or I stand, this broadening
and narrowing of definitions for the sake of the outcome, or for a
political end, is a lawyer's game. For some people to believe X is a
threat, there must be hard evidence, and theory is not enough. For some
people to believe that X may be a threat in the future, less evidence is
required, and a good theory may be enough. The doctrine of pre-emption
offers soothsaying as a way to bridge the gap between the available
evidence and the desired outcome.
(Summing-up amidst charges of being academic...) It will eventually fall
to academics (which I am not) to review the theories propounded as
rationales for pre-emption.
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Apr 14 2003 - 14:24:05 MDT