From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 01:30:29 MDT
Keith Elis wrote:
> Amara Graps:
>
>
>>I am not sure that the U.S. government will be trusted,
>>even if. It's reputation is damaged for the next many
>>many years (I am guessing for a generation).
>
>
> I wonder if the list would like to consider this question: Given that
> the United States *has* damaged its reputation, what was its reputation
> to start, and what is its reputation now? I don't think it's obvious
> that the US's current reputation is any worse than the original.
>
> In my mind, the claim that this administration has opened a frightening
> new chapter in US foreign policy is a claim that may be overstated.
> 'Pre-emption' is nothing more than lawyer's sleight of hand. It's a
> discursive trick used to justify an already agreed-upon course of action
> post-hoc. It is a claim to have predicted the future with enough
> certainty to justify intervention, and the prediction is not replicable
> by anyone else because threat model is classified or based on classfied
> intelligence. Justifying a pre-emptive strike without a smoking gun
> requires your audience to believe in your voodoo. The US knows this, but
> it's not the right to pre-empt threats they care about. It's the
> *reputation* for pre-emptive thinking -- the serious consideration of
> overwhelming responses even when the threat is inchoate -- that the US
> is cultivating. In the end, the US calculates that achieving this
> reputation in the eyes of the international community will have a
> deterrent effect. Terrorists will lose governmental support, nations may
> think twice about pursuing WMD, and so on. But in the end, it's just
> deterrence, tried and true.
>
Hmmm. How is this *not* a frightening new chapter in US foreign
policy? We have struck preemptively so it is not just a matter
of posturing. Why should nations think twice about WMD when
having real WMD is the only apparent deterrent to the US
preemptively attacking to prevent it? Witness North Korea.
I think the US has greatly damaged its reputation ever since the
1950s with its clandestine programs to topple and/or control
foreign governments. But the preemptive strike business and the
mass repudiation of treaties and the blanket attack on alleged
terrorists and supporters of terrorist and seizure of all
assetts at home and abroad without due process is a new and very
dangerous deterioration. Terrorism ia used to justify coming
above board with a great number of foreign and domestic dirty
tricks and increasing their thoroughness. The threat is not
just to foreign peoples and government but to our own rights and
freedom. The government should be losing the faith of the
American people. I am surprised its reputation does not appear
to he deteriorating more rapidly at home.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 01:30:39 MDT