From: Keith Elis (hagbard@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 15:23:03 MDT
Samantha Atkins:
> 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.
I would say the US has justified the strike by *labeling* it
pre-emptive, and post 9-11 this was probably inevitable. When your enemy
is terrorism, you're fighting a method and not a person. But it's merely
a trick of argument. This label reduces the amount of hard evidence
needed to bring the public on-board. The Bush Administration didn't have
the incontrovertible facts so they said, "The threat may materialize,
we need to strike now." In the absence of strong evidence to convince
most people, pre-emption lets theories make up the difference. If it's a
frightening chapter of anything, it's a frightening chapter in US public
militarism. In the weeks leading up to past wars (Desert Storm, Bosnia,
Kosovo, Somalia) the US public required factual evidence to support
military action. Such was provided by the government and the media. Now,
post 9-11, the public is willing to accept theoretical evidence (a good
story). Post 9-11, can they be blamed? Maybe. But if there's any blame
or credit to be had in this war, the Bush Administration gets only small
bit of it in my mind. The US public is ultimately responsible for
believing the evidence offered.
> 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.
You can't deter or prevent someone from getting WMD who already has
them. But I understand your point. You're arguing that the case of North
Korea shows that having WMD will bring the US to the table. Each country
must weigh the benefits and risks. On the one hand, a country may pursue
a secret WMD program, try to keep it secret, and risk an attack
justified as pre-emptive. Or they can give up the quest for WMD, and
risk not having them when needed. Which is the greater risk? The US
hopes that by destroying Saddam Hussein and all of his cohort they have
proven that the risk of the former outweighs the risk of the latter.
After all, it was the US claiming Saddam had non-nuclear WMD in the
first place and that didn't stop them. The current tally seems to be:
nukes will deter the US, chemical and biological WMD will not.
> 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.
I am reminded of Tim May's 1996 essay _True Nyms and Crypto Anarchy_ in
which he identified his 'Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse' -- terrorism,
child pornography, racism, and money laundering. He said these four
things are and will continue to be used to justify restrictions on
strong encryption software, digital cash, anonymity, and data havens. He
was clairvoyant beyond his predictions, it seems, as terrorism has now
been used as a part of the logic for war. But, you bring up a curious
dissonance. 9-11 paved the way for a power-grab by the executive branch.
Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists it seems should be up-in-arms about
it, yet many of the most outspoken support the war and the
Administration. I think that freedom-loving people should be very
nervous. Pre-emptive thinking is the first step on a slippery slope.
Keith
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 15:30:07 MDT