From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 02:34:00 MDT
Keith Elis wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, they certainly can be blamed as the cure is as bad as the
dieseae and is likely to lead to worse attacks of the disease.
Also, the public settled a little too quickly on what evidence
was available (some of it cooked up) in some of these earlier
conflicts. It is an unfortunate tendency of human beings to
want to do something, even if it is not really helpful, when
seriously agitated.
I believe the Bush administration deserves much more blame than
this as it has used terrorism to justify many invasive changes
in the rights and freedom of the people both in practice and on
paper. It has declared perpetual war a la 1984 as a reality. I
agree the people should have screamed loud and long. But then,
how exactly would we have done that? Millions of us marched. By
the polls 60% preferred continued inspections to invasion before
we went ahead. What was it that could have been done that
would have been heard and would have stayed the hand of the
administration. I really would very much like to know.
>
>> 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.
>
I dislike being this cynical but I believe we attacked precisely
because we were reasonably sure Iraq did not have substantial
WMD. Claims it did were a ploy to justify attack. Any country
that does not have WMD can be targetted in the "war on terror"
with impunity.
>
>> 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.
>
Yes, very much so.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 02:37:37 MDT