Thursday, October 21, 2004
Election Enders: Global Test
(This is the first in a series of essays I’m posting as to why I term a number of comments made by Kerry in the debates “election enders”)
For most Americans, the legitimacy of an action is determined solely by the rightness or wrongness of an action, not by how many people agree with your action. This idea is driven into America's youth when the complaint of "But mom, everyone else is doing it" is responded to with"If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you?" Indeed determining the rightness of an action by appealing to the opinions of others is a logical fallacy - the so called appeal to common practice. The rightness or wrongness of an action should be justifed solely on its own merits.
Feeling the heat from the Republican uproar, Kerry was forced to defend himself in this CNN article (which closely parallels Matt’s defense):
First, to echo Thason’s insta-analysis, how is an international test of legitimacy not a limit on our preemptive capacity? How is it not ceding the actions of America to the approval of other nations? To me, it seems to be a semantic difference of middling importance. Following up on our earlier SAT discussion, to me global test : test of legitimacy [in the globe] :: tomAto : tomAHto.
Second, what steps should Bush have taken to give the Iraq the legitimacy that Kerry believes we should have for a preemptive war – the legitimacy that Kerry clearly believes that we did not achieve? What should be this test of legitimacy?
However, Kerry’s position on the war (correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t believe I am cause my certainty comes from GAWD Almighty) is that all of this is not just insufficient, but incompetently insufficient. To me this indicates that there are orders of magnitude more steps that Kerry would’ve taken to secure the "legitimacy" that he associates with the blessing of the global community.
Specifically, Kerry has offered three specific points of criticism on how well Bush's performance in theglobal test legitimacy test I just offered.
Criticism 1. First, that the evidence presented to the UN was flawed in that apparently there were no stockpiles of WMD laying about. At least this criticism considers the rightness or wrongness of the action itself. However, if we were wrong to remove Hussein, then obviously we should correct our mistake and reinstall Hussein, give him back his palaces, and sod off. But who among us believes that we should reinstall Hussein? In the end, we believe the action was correct even though the intelligence that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD was flawed. Therefore, the merit of the action is established, and to me, the legitimacy question is answered. If you would like to know how we came (in good faith) to use this flawed intelligence, I would suggest you read the Duelfer report.
Criticism 2.The second criticism is that while Bush tried to get UN authorization, Bush did not actually get the formal authorization to go to war. What else can this mean, but that in the eyes of Kerry by failing to get the approval of France, Russia, and China we made the whole enterprise illegitimate. Thus we failed theglobal test legitimacy test.
However, this incident highlights the reasons why we do not subordinate American actions to international authorities. France and Russia were on the take from Iraq in the oil for food scandal and France has a long standing policy of opposing US action, even predating Vedrine's “hyperpuissance” comments which stated France's intention to create a multipolar world to oppose the US. France’s ill intents were also evidenced by the Niger forged documents episode. By allowing the legitimacy of our actions to be determined by the approval of foreign countries and only permitting our actions to occur when those countries deem our actions legitimate, we cede authority to those countries.
Criticism 3. The third criticism is that Bush did not get enough allies involved in his coalition of the “bribed and coerced” and thus we are bearing to great a cost in terms of life and capital. While the Bush campaign is right to point out that calling our alliance "fraudulent" is demeaning to our current allies and not very helpful for bringing any more allies on board later, the criticism is also indicative of Kerry’s willingness to subjugate US policy to international approval.
How many countries are needed before action can move forward? Obviously not the 34 we had in Gulf War I which Kerry voted against. Obviously not 38 - that’s so low that the Gulf War II coalition is “fraudulent.”
So what number would be acceptable, 60? 100? The whole world? In what sense is this not basing the legitimacy of our actions on the approval of others? In what sense is Kerry’s requirement not a global test, even in the perjorative sense?
As part of this criticism, Kerry also points out that the US is absorbing 90% of the deaths in Iraq - a figure he says is far too high (a figure that also ignores Iraqi deaths). However, in Gulf War I there were 293 American deaths and 358 total coalition deaths in Gulf War I for a US death percentage of 81%. Though again, I guess that's an unfair comparison as Kerry voted against that war.
After noting the steps that Bush went through to try to rally allies to our cause, one can draw the conclustion that either theseglobal tests legitimacy tests are biased against Bush, or Kerry is so desirous of international approval that anything less than UN impratur is illegitimate. Personally, I think it’s both.
To bolster my assertion of Kerry’s need for UN impratur, I’ll quote this article from the WaPo.
global test legitimacy test that required international approval for US action for legitimacy (cause doncha know, the US isn't powerful enough to affect the outcome of a war without it being a part of a UN effort.). However, disregarding my earlier points for the moment, maybe Kerry changed and is not just saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. After all, Bush was not into the nation building thing when he was elected, but Bush has said that 9/11 changed his outlook. Maybe 9/11 was a similarly life-changing event for Kerry. That would at least address this last issue I raise. So let’s see Kerry’s thoughts on the subject from an Oct 10 interview in the NYT magazine (now archived, but excerpted here)
Kerry believes that war, including preemptive war, requires the approval of the world community. Kerry believes the rightness or wrongness of an action - the legitimacy of the action - is determined by the approval of others. I know this to be wrong. Most Americans know this to be wrong. This is why the "global test" line, or "test of international legitimacy", or whatever Kerry wants to call it, should be an election ender.
Update
Similar thoughts are expressed over at fedora pundit.
|
Welcome, World Leader. We understand that you'd like to undertake some type of foreign policy action. In the past, this would have involved a great deal of debate and diplomatic activity (not to mention bribery) in Paris, Brussels, and on the west bank of the East River. In the interest of streamlined world government, we've developed this simple test, which should take no more than a few minutes to fill out, to get you quickly on to your next foreign adventure, should it meet all reasonable criteria for peace and international justice.That’s the intro to the global test that some enterprising satirist put up online. “Global Test” is also the phrase used by Kerry in describing his differences with Bush on preemptive war in the first debate.
What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?Republicans (and Thason - see 10:00 entry) immediately picked up on these phrases and ridiculed Kerry for saying that we needed to pass a global test for our actions to be legitimate. For most Americans (though not all), the thought of subordinating America’s authority to some other country or international entity is anathema.
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
For most Americans, the legitimacy of an action is determined solely by the rightness or wrongness of an action, not by how many people agree with your action. This idea is driven into America's youth when the complaint of "But mom, everyone else is doing it" is responded to with"If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you?" Indeed determining the rightness of an action by appealing to the opinions of others is a logical fallacy - the so called appeal to common practice. The rightness or wrongness of an action should be justifed solely on its own merits.
Feeling the heat from the Republican uproar, Kerry was forced to defend himself in this CNN article (which closely parallels Matt’s defense):
Asked during a town hall meeting in Hampton to explain what he meant, the Massachusetts senator said, "It's almost sad; it's certainly pathetic, because all they can do is grab a little phrase and try to play a game and scare Americans."So Kerry seems to be asserting that his test of legitimacy is not a global test, yet we must pass this legitimacy test to go to war. The rest of this post is in response to that assertion.
He added, "They're misleading Americans about what I said. What I said in the sentence preceding that was, 'I will never cede America's security to any institution or any other country.' No one gets a veto over our security. No one.
"And if they were honest enough to give America the full quote, which America heard, they would know that I'm never going to allow America's security to be outsourced. That's the job of the president.
"But I can do a better job of protecting America's security because the test that I was talking about was a test of legitimacy, not just in the globe, but elsewhere.” [elsewhere? Remember what I said earlier, no matter who wins this election, English loses.]
First, to echo Thason’s insta-analysis, how is an international test of legitimacy not a limit on our preemptive capacity? How is it not ceding the actions of America to the approval of other nations? To me, it seems to be a semantic difference of middling importance. Following up on our earlier SAT discussion, to me global test : test of legitimacy [in the globe] :: tomAto : tomAHto.
Second, what steps should Bush have taken to give the Iraq the legitimacy that Kerry believes we should have for a preemptive war – the legitimacy that Kerry clearly believes that we did not achieve? What should be this test of legitimacy?
Should we have made our case to the American people before going to war? Bush did that in the SOTU and for a YEAR leading up to the war.These are all good steps as long as the emphasis is on trying to accomplish these international goals, cause ultimately our decisions should not be determined by the whims and machinations of other nations.
Should we first have issued a warning to Iraq through the UN? Bush did that.
Should we have presented evidence to make our case at the UN? Powell did that.
Should we have tried to secure a formal authorization from the UN to go to war? Bush did that.
Should we have tried to bring along as many countries as possible? Bush got 38.
However, Kerry’s position on the war (correct me if I’m wrong here, but I don’t believe I am cause my certainty comes from GAWD Almighty) is that all of this is not just insufficient, but incompetently insufficient. To me this indicates that there are orders of magnitude more steps that Kerry would’ve taken to secure the "legitimacy" that he associates with the blessing of the global community.
Specifically, Kerry has offered three specific points of criticism on how well Bush's performance in the
Criticism 1. First, that the evidence presented to the UN was flawed in that apparently there were no stockpiles of WMD laying about. At least this criticism considers the rightness or wrongness of the action itself. However, if we were wrong to remove Hussein, then obviously we should correct our mistake and reinstall Hussein, give him back his palaces, and sod off. But who among us believes that we should reinstall Hussein? In the end, we believe the action was correct even though the intelligence that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD was flawed. Therefore, the merit of the action is established, and to me, the legitimacy question is answered. If you would like to know how we came (in good faith) to use this flawed intelligence, I would suggest you read the Duelfer report.
Criticism 2.The second criticism is that while Bush tried to get UN authorization, Bush did not actually get the formal authorization to go to war. What else can this mean, but that in the eyes of Kerry by failing to get the approval of France, Russia, and China we made the whole enterprise illegitimate. Thus we failed the
However, this incident highlights the reasons why we do not subordinate American actions to international authorities. France and Russia were on the take from Iraq in the oil for food scandal and France has a long standing policy of opposing US action, even predating Vedrine's “hyperpuissance” comments which stated France's intention to create a multipolar world to oppose the US. France’s ill intents were also evidenced by the Niger forged documents episode. By allowing the legitimacy of our actions to be determined by the approval of foreign countries and only permitting our actions to occur when those countries deem our actions legitimate, we cede authority to those countries.
Criticism 3. The third criticism is that Bush did not get enough allies involved in his coalition of the “bribed and coerced” and thus we are bearing to great a cost in terms of life and capital. While the Bush campaign is right to point out that calling our alliance "fraudulent" is demeaning to our current allies and not very helpful for bringing any more allies on board later, the criticism is also indicative of Kerry’s willingness to subjugate US policy to international approval.
How many countries are needed before action can move forward? Obviously not the 34 we had in Gulf War I which Kerry voted against. Obviously not 38 - that’s so low that the Gulf War II coalition is “fraudulent.”
So what number would be acceptable, 60? 100? The whole world? In what sense is this not basing the legitimacy of our actions on the approval of others? In what sense is Kerry’s requirement not a global test, even in the perjorative sense?
As part of this criticism, Kerry also points out that the US is absorbing 90% of the deaths in Iraq - a figure he says is far too high (a figure that also ignores Iraqi deaths). However, in Gulf War I there were 293 American deaths and 358 total coalition deaths in Gulf War I for a US death percentage of 81%. Though again, I guess that's an unfair comparison as Kerry voted against that war.
After noting the steps that Bush went through to try to rally allies to our cause, one can draw the conclustion that either these
To bolster my assertion of Kerry’s need for UN impratur, I’ll quote this article from the WaPo.
Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally [the English language is going to lose on Nov 2] going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."At least in 1994 Kerry believed in a
When I asked Kerry how Sept. 11 had changed him, either personally or politically, he seemed to freeze for a moment. ''It accelerated -- '' He paused. ''I mean, it didn't change me much at all. It just sort of accelerated, confirmed in me, the urgency of doing the things I thought we needed to be doing. I mean, to me, it wasn't as transformational as it was a kind of anger, a frustration and an urgency that we weren't doing the kinds of things necessary to prevent it and to deal with it.''The “global test” line was an election ender because, just for a moment, it pulled back the curtain of words that Kerry had carefully hung during this campaign and allowed the American voter to catch a glimpse of Kerry's actual beliefs.
Kerry believes that war, including preemptive war, requires the approval of the world community. Kerry believes the rightness or wrongness of an action - the legitimacy of the action - is determined by the approval of others. I know this to be wrong. Most Americans know this to be wrong. This is why the "global test" line, or "test of international legitimacy", or whatever Kerry wants to call it, should be an election ender.
Update
Similar thoughts are expressed over at fedora pundit.
|
