 |
 |
 |
|
On Schlesinger's War Critique
Schlesinger's piece appropriately rejects the Bush administration's inept and risky behavior, but I can't help but feel that he's still writing from Cold War premises. The world has changed. Clearly, the Bush adminstration believes these thngs: 1) Totalitarian regimes pose a threat to the U.S. 2) The only difference between a terrorist like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is that one runs a country and the other doesn't. 3. Technology now permits asymetrical attacks within U.S. borders that can be repulsed only by eliminating the overseas sources of those attacks. I'd pose it differently. Until we change our ideas about sovereignty, totalitarian regimes and terrorists will continue to kill people and democratic regimes will continue to have an incentive to war against those regimes and groups. Consider: 1) Totalitarian regimes threaten democracies everywhere. Not necessarily by force of arms, but by countering the spread of democracy, and,often, by falsifying or deliberately distorting the policies of democractic states in order to create strawman enemies to sustain regime-supporting nationalistic fervor. It is in their interests to "pick a fight" with the U.S. This behavior directly contributes to the creation and sustenance of terrorism. 2. Technology has, in fact, increased the risk posed by totalitarian regimes and terrorists. This is different. These people are now able to strengthen the anti-U.S. emotion that sustains them by striking directly at the U.S., provoking the U.S. into retaliatory acts that "prove" the correctness of their anti-U.S. strawman. Unless the U.S. wishes to live like Israelis have lived, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. 3. Viable and functioning totalitarian regimes cannot be brought down by internal rebellion. (For example, the Soviet Union collapsed only after falling into social and economic decay. The failed coup of August 1991 would not have happened in August 1951.) External force or pressure of some kind must be applied. This does not need to be war, but it must be something that reduces or eliminates the regime's ability to govern. 4. Many current anti-war protestors lose credibility because they have been silent about the evils and atrocities committed by Baghdad, Pyongyang and other regimes. This contributes to the impression that many -- not all -- protests are motivated more by disgust with Bush, and that part of the American culture that he personifies, than disgust with war. I.e. the war has given them a target of opportunity. If someone is repulsed by the notion of governments killing people, there's plenty of work to do. 5. Contemporary notions of sovereignty support the continued existence of totalitarian regimes and terrorists groups, as well as the ability of nations of engage in unilateral acts of war. (The UN lacks the will and ability to stop one derelict African nation from attacking another, much less stopping the U.S. from attacking Iraq.) There is no international organization that represents the will of people. (Did you vote for your ambassador to the UN?) The fact that UN treats totalitarian regimes as peers of democratic regimes means it cannot pursue the real interests of people, which would include the elimination of those totalitarian regimes.
|
