![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
My very good friend (and former housemate in grad school) Haggai might be relocating to DC. Which would be excellent, as I'd get another friend back here. And his 48-inch TV and absolute killer DVD-selection.
Haggai notes in his own blog, that there's a definition issue in play - namely what constitutes torture. There's a grey are between pointing fingers and shiny lamps and sodomizing people with broomsticks. And while I recognize that there needs to be a certain degree of room for finnessing - this is exactly the sort of subject matter where clear rules and regulations as to what the lines are supposed to be are. This ought to be a matter where the individuals on the front lines, carrying policy out, have clear guidelines. In the middle of the war, you do not give a blank check on interrogation techniques, because without guidelines (and often even with them) people will go overboard. Such is the nature of war.
And equally importantly, we can't rewrite such rules to suit our convenience - to do so strikes at the heart of our own credibility,
That's something of the Liberal Internationalist argument. I agree with H, but with slightly different reasoning.
The United States, in general, attempts to propagate norms and rights for two reasons: moral and strategic. The moral case is clear enough - that all people have rights that should be respected.
Strategically, it serves our own interests, and our citizens, to support these norms. If our people are attacked, are wronged, supporting these norms gives us credibility to stand in their defense. If we propagate just torture in the name of "national security", then certainly the Iraqi's could make such a claim justifying torture of American personnel considering we're invading their nation.
When it comes to foreign policy and security, I'm a philosphical heir of the Realists - Kissenger, Kenneth Waltz, Machiavelli. (I was a US-Russian Affairs Intern at the Nixon Center) That doesn't mean I'm against Liberal International norms. I support those norms, because in general, those norms (presuming they are followed) serve US interests.
Spurious wars, gross and unnecessary violations of international norms do not support US interests. Hard power (military and economic power) is extremely useful for an imperial state in the international arena (and the US is an empire) but the "soft power" in the form of cultural and artistic influence is extremely important as well - because it allows for successes brute force cannot achieve lightly. Persuasive, rather than coercive. Soft power, in conjunction with hard power, is what won the cold war.
If one believes that "history is on the side" of mixed capitalist economy, free trade, democratic/repulican forms of government, and open civil societies - then it's key to put those values on display as successful. Capitalize on the ways in which other countries want to be like America in order to generate favorable policy aims for US interests. Be a friend to Civil Society abroad - not merely through overthrowing hostile or repressive governments, but through cultural exchange, aid, and tools like the Peace Corps.
One of the administration's biggest failures with Iraq, is how it's policies do little to help a nascent Iraqi civil society (the society from which any democratic government would have to spring) while simultaneously undermining what influence we might have on that civil society. It's not enough to be "right". It's not enough to be "the good guy". You have to convincingly demonstrate to skeptical and hostile audiences that "you're good and right". You must be able to coerce if necessary, but you must also be willing and able to persuade when the opportunity presents itself.
And you don't fight to win the War on Terror. You fight to win the peace. Because that's where American intersts chiefly lie - in the status of the world at equilibrim.
Some of this week's work is done. I think I'll try to get in before 7 AM again tomorrow. The government gets off, but I don't - so it'll be a mad scramble to create work that I can do remote - because I do not want to deal with the traffic hell that Friday promises to be.
I think it says a lot to me, that a President dies, and I'm mostly concerned with how this might impact the traffic patterns around DC. My commute is generally 30-in, 40-out. Fridays, are worse. The funeral could really screw things, especially if they do much with 395 or Independence Ave.
"We ought to be reasonable about this," he told the crowded committee room. "I think there are very few people in this room or in America who would say that torture should never, ever be used, particularly if thousands of lives are at stake." --Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Haggai notes in his own blog, that there's a definition issue in play - namely what constitutes torture. There's a grey are between pointing fingers and shiny lamps and sodomizing people with broomsticks. And while I recognize that there needs to be a certain degree of room for finnessing - this is exactly the sort of subject matter where clear rules and regulations as to what the lines are supposed to be are. This ought to be a matter where the individuals on the front lines, carrying policy out, have clear guidelines. In the middle of the war, you do not give a blank check on interrogation techniques, because without guidelines (and often even with them) people will go overboard. Such is the nature of war.
Even if there are some disputable instances of what exactly does or doesn't constitute torture, the very principle has to be unassailable. How, exactly, would we know that thousands of lives were at stake, in any given instance? Our record of terrorism-related intelligence doesn't inspire much confidence in that regard. How could such a special circumstance even be defined? --H
And equally importantly, we can't rewrite such rules to suit our convenience - to do so strikes at the heart of our own credibility,
We do try to follow certain rules, and that's largely what separates us from the bad guys. If we're going to claim the right to make our own rules because we're the good guys, then we aren't the good guys anymore. Then it's just bad guys against worse guys. --H
That's something of the Liberal Internationalist argument. I agree with H, but with slightly different reasoning.
The United States, in general, attempts to propagate norms and rights for two reasons: moral and strategic. The moral case is clear enough - that all people have rights that should be respected.
Strategically, it serves our own interests, and our citizens, to support these norms. If our people are attacked, are wronged, supporting these norms gives us credibility to stand in their defense. If we propagate just torture in the name of "national security", then certainly the Iraqi's could make such a claim justifying torture of American personnel considering we're invading their nation.
When it comes to foreign policy and security, I'm a philosphical heir of the Realists - Kissenger, Kenneth Waltz, Machiavelli. (I was a US-Russian Affairs Intern at the Nixon Center) That doesn't mean I'm against Liberal International norms. I support those norms, because in general, those norms (presuming they are followed) serve US interests.
Spurious wars, gross and unnecessary violations of international norms do not support US interests. Hard power (military and economic power) is extremely useful for an imperial state in the international arena (and the US is an empire) but the "soft power" in the form of cultural and artistic influence is extremely important as well - because it allows for successes brute force cannot achieve lightly. Persuasive, rather than coercive. Soft power, in conjunction with hard power, is what won the cold war.
If one believes that "history is on the side" of mixed capitalist economy, free trade, democratic/repulican forms of government, and open civil societies - then it's key to put those values on display as successful. Capitalize on the ways in which other countries want to be like America in order to generate favorable policy aims for US interests. Be a friend to Civil Society abroad - not merely through overthrowing hostile or repressive governments, but through cultural exchange, aid, and tools like the Peace Corps.
One of the administration's biggest failures with Iraq, is how it's policies do little to help a nascent Iraqi civil society (the society from which any democratic government would have to spring) while simultaneously undermining what influence we might have on that civil society. It's not enough to be "right". It's not enough to be "the good guy". You have to convincingly demonstrate to skeptical and hostile audiences that "you're good and right". You must be able to coerce if necessary, but you must also be willing and able to persuade when the opportunity presents itself.
And you don't fight to win the War on Terror. You fight to win the peace. Because that's where American intersts chiefly lie - in the status of the world at equilibrim.
Some of this week's work is done. I think I'll try to get in before 7 AM again tomorrow. The government gets off, but I don't - so it'll be a mad scramble to create work that I can do remote - because I do not want to deal with the traffic hell that Friday promises to be.
I think it says a lot to me, that a President dies, and I'm mostly concerned with how this might impact the traffic patterns around DC. My commute is generally 30-in, 40-out. Fridays, are worse. The funeral could really screw things, especially if they do much with 395 or Independence Ave.
no subject
"Soft power, in conjunction with hard power, is what won the cold war."
Absolutely. I firmly believe that Coca Cola and Levi's jeans has as much to do with fall of Russia and the opening up of China as anything else. People around the world want American products.
If your name is Jck Bauer and the man you've captured is about to wipe LA off the face of the earth, then torture is acceptable. But even then, iw very controlled and it didn't work. Soldiers torturing random citizens because they're suspected terrorists is not only unaccepatble but undermines anything we were trying to accomplish. (of course, part of the propblem, at least for me, is I'm not sure what we thought we were going to accomplish.)
no subject
I think it's a bit more than that - people want to have stability, prosperity, and freedom. We fought the Cold War on a few fronts - containment, detente, and troops countered the military threat. Our culture, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty encouraged the development of Civil Society. But Poland had Solidarity, Checholslovakia had Charter 77, and Russia had a shadow economy.
if the man you've captured is about to wipe LA off the face of the earth, then torture is acceptable
Presuming one knows for certain that this is the guy, that he actually knows, and that it will never get out. Torture has a sketchy record in terms of reliability, and our intelligence service doesn't have a stellar record either.
I'm not sure what we thought we were going to accomplish.
I'm not sure either. None of the efforts in the run-up, and the efforts employed, match to form any coherent picture. It looks like a pretty amateurish endeavor. If you're remotely a student of Sun Tzu or Machiavelli, that's pretty much the worst thing you can be.
no subject
In real life, I agree, life is more complicated and the line between them and us is often pretty thin.
no subject
no subject
no subject
question
Can you define this and explain what you mean?
Re: question
------------
Main Entry: em·pire
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French empire, empirie, from Latin imperium absolute authority, empire, from imperare
1 a (1) : a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority; especially : one having an emperor as chief of state (2) : the territory of such a political unit b : something resembling a political empire; especially : an extensive territory or enterprise under single domination or control
2 : imperial sovereignty, rule, or dominion
--------------
Now, the US chief of state, is a president and not an empire, however the US maintains a large reach beyond the geographic boundaries. In order to support US trade, the Navy patrols the high seas, and prepares to control sea lanes. There are, IIRC, roughly 750 US military bases abroad. While we may not exercise direct sovereignty over this territory, such a forward presence (coupled with economic might and trading presence) allows the US to maintain influence and authority abroad, such that we can invade and exert that power if deemed necessary. For the most part, it's forward-deployed strategy of power projection for domestic benefit, rather than overt expansionism - but the result is the same. To my mind, as an actor on the international stage, this constitutes empire. We are certainly perceived as such.
I don't necessarily judge that this is either good or bad. I just think it accurately describes the United States.
no subject
Rhi
no subject
Good thoughts also on the idea of the US as an empire. The word "empire" is a bit loaded, but oh well. I tend to think that the day will come (sooner than we think) that this imperial posture will become too costly, just as it did for the British. Well, we'll see. =)
BTW, you may know me as "Kansas" from ATPoBtVS... I was going to comment again in the thread that was started by the Jonah Goldberg discussion, but then saw it'd been bumped into the archives. I'm curious, however, why you were basically defending Vegeta's comments. LeeAnn may be annoying, but I saw nothing that warranted the amount of venom displayed by Vegeta. Especially the "drink the coolaid" comment; what an appalling thing to say. Maybe there's some "history" between those two that I'm ignorant of, but still... a response to a post should be a response to the content of the post, IMO.
Re: Good points, thanks for reply
Yeah. McCain. Joe Biden. A few other folks.
As to "empire" - it is a loaded term. I can't think of a better description, because we do wield a large amount of power beyond our borders, and I don't necessarily see it as a "bad" thing. The problem, for me, is the current administrations over-reliance on muscularity, and their lack of vision and inability to understand the full range of ways in which we can exert influence. Long term, I think subtlety is a better, cheaper bet for US interests - and that you tread carefully with force.
But the current administration sees finesse as "soft" and "weak", IMHO to the detriment of US interests. And probably, the world's as well.
why you were basically defending Vegeta's comments
I think both Vegeta and LeAnn crossed the line of decorum. Vegeta's bile was unwarranted and I should have criticized that.
Politically, I consider myself fairly moderate (having worked for both Republicans and Democrats - though I've only campaigned for the dems) and I try to have some degree of thoughtfulness going on most of the time. I have a bad habit, with dismissing people like LeAnn who argue from the left of me, with instinctively discarding them when I feel like they aren't helping in my discussions with those to my right.
This, of course, being bogus and I probably should have called Vegeta on that - an attack on ideology is not inherently a personal attack.
But Grant was correct, in that LeAnn didn't merely attack the ideology, but slandered everyone who subscribed to it. And that's the only thing I responded to.
I'm not familiar with any history of posts between LeAnn and Vegeta (who I'd never remembered posting before.) I am a bit more familiar with LeAnn's posting style, which rhetoric and views aside, tends to bother me because I've not felt her to be open to reasonable discussion or thought on the topics she posts on.
That was a case where I probably should have paid a bit more attention to the thread.