Do you know what this blog needs? More posts about the constraints of international law on American foreign policy!
My two pence worth on this subject (which probably doesn’t really merit a full post but I can’t find the right one to append it to as a comment) is that although the criterion “America can unilaterally decide to invade anywhere in the world if it feels like its interests are threatened” looks like something of an insane recipe for perpetual war, it would potentially be an improvement on the current situation.
I say this because the requirement for some important interest of the USA to be threatened (and the implied requirement for the USA’s assessment of that threat to be reasonable and thorough[1]) would appear on the face of it to rule out a number of currently influential points of view.
Specifically, “a vital interest being at stake” is a requirement which would not allow the USA to invade other countries “because it can or “to pick up some crappy little country and throw it against the wall”[2]. It would also set limits (probably not terribly binding limits but not nothing) on the ability of American politicians who are partisans of foreign countries to talk the USA into wars which are not in the interest of the USA but popular with well-organised political constituencies.
So as far as I can see, the principle that the USA ought to be able to arbitrarily respond to threats to its interests with military force actually marks out the leftmost limit of “serious” debate on this subject, as Friedman, Goldberg and Ledeen are all still mainstream figures, but people who agree with John basically aren’t. Worth remembering how utterly wacky the Very Serious People are.
[1] Derived from the standard common law principle that any statute which gives some power or other to a public official does not usually give that official arbitrary power and capricious or malicious uses of a legal power are usually subject to judicial review. The tort of malfeasance in public office is based on this principle.
[2] I suspect that some fool in comments will try to advance the case that the USA has a vital interest in “showing the world we mean business” which could be threatened by a crappy little country going unthrown for too long. I won’t actually delete that post when it appears, but I mean really, please, don’t bother.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 64 comments }
abb1 08.24.07 at 1:46 pm
I call footnote 2. Of course in a predatory environment it’s your vital interest to show that you mean business. Watch The Sopranos.
aaron_m 08.24.07 at 1:50 pm
How is this an improvement over the current situation? Surely the US administration expected that the invasion of Iraq was going to be worth it prior to going in based on their cost benefit analysis.
If the idea is rather that it should not be the administration’s conception of what is positive on a cost benefit analysis but rather some better measure for America’s interests, fine. But that seems to be an issue of domestic politics and certainly not one that it obviously improved by the US having Hobbesian hegemony internationally.
Steve LaBonne 08.24.07 at 2:03 pm
You see, I wish I believed that, but what I actually believe is that Daniel is on the money. These people are just insane. They really do “think” like Tommy Airmiles and Doughy Pantload. I hate to admit that even to myself because it makes the world a truly scary place between now and January 2009, but I fear it is so.
dsquared 08.24.07 at 2:17 pm
Surely the US administration expected that the invasion of Iraq was going to be worth it prior to going in based on their cost benefit analysis.
all I can really say to this is “don’t call me Shirley”.
aaron_m 08.24.07 at 2:24 pm
Well they might be insane in thinking that it would be worth it, but that is something different that attacking when you not it is not going to be worth it. When you know that it is going to be a huge economic and political fiasco. That latter is a different kind of insane.
At any rate there is nothing here at all to give us a reason to think that more US hegemony is going to lead to better policy decisions.
Get serious.
aaron_m 08.24.07 at 2:38 pm
(minus the typos)
Well they might be insane in thinking that it would be worth it, but that is something different than attacking when you know that it is not going to be worth it. When you know that it is going to be a huge economic and political fiasco. That latter is a different kind of insane.
At any rate there is nothing here at all to give us a reason to think that more US hegemony is going to lead to better policy decisions.
Get serious.
Slocum 08.24.07 at 2:39 pm
It would also set limits (probably not terribly binding limits but not nothing) on the ability of American politicians who are partisans of foreign countries to talk the USA into wars which are not in the interest of the USA but popular with well-organised political constituencies.
Ah, yes, what we need are [I have mentioned in the past that an informal extension of the comments policy is that this blog is “Not At Home To Mr And Mrs Insinuated-Accusations-Of-Anti-Semitism”. The quoted paragraph means what it says and no more and is if anything more applicable to the blockade of Cuba than anything in the Middle East – dd]…Sheesh. [Shoosh -dd]
Steve LaBonne: You see, I wish I believed that, but what I actually believe is that Daniel is on the money. These people are just insane.
Aw Christ, it’s not complicated. The Bushies invaded Iraq because, following the amazingly quick, easy (as it turns out deceptively easy) rout of the Taliban, they thought they had a historical opportunity not only to get rid of Saddam (who’d been a thorn in the side for a long time) but to revolutionize the Middle East. I don’t know why people insist on other motives, since the idea of achieving greatness on an historical level is plenty intoxicating enough on its own. Presidents are forever worrying about how they’re going to be ‘remembered by history’. Why do you think Bush is fascinated by how much abuse Lincoln took before the Civil War finally turned in the North’s favor?
Steve LaBonne 08.24.07 at 2:45 pm
US hegemony administered by rational people is definitely not a good thing but it’s got to be marginally better than US hegemony administered by lunatics. And you can call me Shirley if you want (though I would look really bad in a skirt) but I’m not kidding. (And pace slocum I just can’t see poking a stick in a hornet’s nest for the pure hell of it as a product of anything that deserves to be called a rational calculation.)
aaron_m 08.24.07 at 2:53 pm
“US hegemony administered by rational people is definitely not a good thing but it’s got to be marginally better than US hegemony administered by lunatics.”
And that is a domestic issue which is not improved by more hegemony as far as I can tell. But Danial seems to say that more hegemony helps somehow.
As for what the administration was really thinking I don’t know. But I do think it is reasonable to say that they expected to ‘come out on top,’ whatever that entailed in their little fantasy worlds.
Rich B. 08.24.07 at 2:56 pm
Isn’t the problem with this formulation that it eliminates the possibility of intervention in cases where “we liberals” would actually want it (threatened minority culture threatened by fascist poopyhead overlords in Somalia, Sudan, Kosovo, etc.) and allow it in exactly those situations where “you conservatives” want to (Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, etc.)?
Daniel 08.24.07 at 2:58 pm
the idea of achieving greatness on an historical level is plenty intoxicating enough on its own
“getting rid of thorns”, “pursuing an opportunity to revolutionise the Middle East” and similar vanity projects also ruled out by the demanding, pacifistic standard favoured by McArdle, Drezner, etc, etc.
Daniel 08.24.07 at 3:01 pm
But Danial seems to say that more hegemony helps somehow
Hegemony is a given – in a Hobbesian world, the strongest man can do what he likes even if he doesn’t bother to become a Leviathan. The point is simply that even the “maximalist” point of view of what it’s justified for the US to do from the sensible debate we’ve been having on this side would be regarded as too restrictive by Michael Ledeen and Thomas Friedman (who I am happy to refer to as Mickey O’Ledeen and Tommasso Friedmanico if anyone besides Slocum thinks that they can infer dark intent from a list of names).
aaron_m 08.24.07 at 3:09 pm
By the way
“Hegemony is a given – in a Hobbesian world, the strongest man can do what he likes”
That is both theoretically and empirically false, a point Hobbes plainly made.
The strongest man is the strongest man, but he is still just a man and can’t do whatever he likes. No man has such power on his own, and even the weakest man can harm or kill the strongest despite his superior defenses. That is why the state of nature is so violent.
Matt 08.24.07 at 3:15 pm
Hmm, I was just going to say what Aaron did, that what Daniel says about the strongest man in a Hobbesian world is, at least, completely the opposite of what Hobbes himself says. There has been some interesting work on how the international system is _not_ like what Hobbes says the state of nature is like (Hobbes himself seemd to see this, though he didn’t develop it.) I don’t have the references with me now, I’m afraid. But, it is clear that Daniel’s point in 11 is pretty much the opposite of what Hobbes says, for what that’s worth.
Daniel 08.24.07 at 3:30 pm
If the distribution of physical strength among human beings looked like the distribution of military power between modern states, then the strongest man would be roughly the size and shape of Godzilla, while the second strongest would be King Kong’s smaller brother. In such a state, I think Hobbes might have been more inclined to agree with me.
aaron_m 08.24.07 at 3:33 pm
Obviously the US cannot do whatever it likes. Have you been watching the news?
will 08.24.07 at 3:37 pm
I was actually thinking over this last night, despite my fearful ignorance of Hobbes: The US is the sovereign, unaccountable but nevertheless the guarantor of a harsh-but-stable neoliberal order. Compare, say, Russia, who is only pursuing her national interest (read: the interest of the Kremlin oligarchy), often at the expensive of international stability.
I’d certainly prefer a social democratic order, but I’m inclined think the hegemonic role of the US is unavoidable — enlightened imperial rule and all that. On the other hand, I’m sympathetic to those to my left who claim imperial rule is inherently exploitative, and cheer on anti-systemic revolts by the Venezuelan government, South African trade unions, etc.
will 08.24.07 at 3:54 pm
To make my Russia/US comparison more explicit: Can anyone imagine contemporary Russia taking a leading role in building institutional arrangements like Bretton Woods? Russia is pursuing her interest (like grabbing chunks of the Arctic) within the framework of inter-state relations the US upholds. The USSR, on the other hand, was behind a parallel set of international institutions like Comecon.
wissen 08.24.07 at 4:00 pm
Daniel, Isn’t ‘preemptive strike’, and pre-emption under the rubric of defense, the US’s excuse, though.
dsquared 08.24.07 at 4:02 pm
#19 yes it is, because thank christ, the actual people who have the power to make things happen in the world care quite a lot more about international law and common human sanity than their “supporters”.
theophylact 08.24.07 at 4:03 pm
Not to side with Tom Friedman or Bill Kristol, but the principle of doing something that doesn’t make sense from a relatively short-term point of view is sometimes necessary. That’s why unions have to strike from time to time, although they essentially always come out worse off at the end of the strike than they were before it. A weapon that’s never used is essentially useless.
Which is why I’ve been shitting my pants since the invention of nuclear weapons, and hoping that the memory of its one-time use stays sufficiently green.
ejh 08.24.07 at 4:29 pm
Why do you think Bush is fascinated by how much abuse Lincoln took before the Civil War finally turned in the North’s favor?
Because he’s taking loads of abuse, and because the war is yet to turn in his favour.
Anthony 08.24.07 at 4:29 pm
¨Isn’t the problem with this formulation that it eliminates the possibility of intervention in cases where “we liberals†would actually want it¨
Daniel may wish to correct me if I’m wrong, but his view of humanitarian intervention is that it is almost always not in the interests of those it seeks to help.
Matthew Gordon 08.24.07 at 5:18 pm
It would also set limits (probably not terribly binding limits but not nothing) on the ability of American politicians who are partisans of foreign countries to talk the USA into wars which are not in the interest of the USA but popular with well-organised political constituencies.
Followed by:
[I have mentioned in the past that an informal extension of the comments policy is that this blog is “Not At Home To Mr And Mrs Insinuated-Accusations-Of-Anti-Semitismâ€. The quoted paragraph means what it says and no more and is if anything more applicable to the blockade of Cuba than anything in the Middle East – dd]
Really? Which wars is this referring to, in the context of Cuba? The Spanish-American War?
airth10 08.24.07 at 5:47 pm
Perhaps it is a good thing that America has done badly in Iraq. If it had been successful as it had wished there would be no telling what it would do next.
The fiasco of Iraq has contained the US from other similar stupid adventures. Imagine, the US has contained itself, in a manner like it contained the USSR during the Cold War. It has tied its own hands so that it is not so capable of doing the “preemptive wars” of its choosing.
Steve Rosenbach 08.24.07 at 5:59 pm
I think that rather for now, the question of the failure of the “International Community” and how to amleiorate that failure is more germane than talking about “constraints of international law on American foreign policy.”
Stripped of all hyperventilation and ad hominism, the decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam was a policy/political decision, and the reasoning underlying the decision is at least arguable and compelling (see for example, Ken Pollack’s definitive 2002 book, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.” Pollack, now of Brookings, was a veteran CIA middle-east analyst and a member of the NSC staff twice under President Clinton) .
On the other hand, the failure of the “International Community” to intervene in the crisis in Rawanda, Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur, and certainly in Saddam’s Iraq is indefensible. Bear in mind that even the Euros did nothing in Bosnia and Kosovo until Clinton got so frustrated that he led the military efforts in those two cases.
So what are we gonna due about an “International Community” that refuses to act in the face of human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and terrorism?
If you can answer that question and come up with a way for the “IC” to effectively replace tyrants with rule of law and respect for human rights, I guarantee you that you will no longer have to concern yourself with “constraints of international law on American foreign policy.”
Best regards,
SteveR
Shelby 08.24.07 at 6:00 pm
The fiasco of Iraq has contained the US from other similar stupid adventures.
More or less true. (Never underestimate the power of stupidity, though.) Note that this will also preclude potentially-smart adventures; at this point I don’t think the US would repeat its involvement in Kosovo, which many or most of Iraq War II’s opponents supported. Admittedly, smart adventures are scarcer than stupid ones.
Steve LaBonne 08.24.07 at 6:02 pm
Cross your fingers, knock on wood, and throw salt over your shoulder when you say that! The war with Iran hasn’t started- yet.
Ben Alpers 08.24.07 at 6:37 pm
Stripped of all hyperventilation and ad hominism, the decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam was a policy/political decision, and the reasoning underlying the decision is at least arguable and compelling (see for example, Ken Pollack’s definitive 2002 book, “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.†Pollack, now of Brookings, was a veteran CIA middle-east analyst and a member of the NSC staff twice under President Clinton).
OK. I’ll bite. What is “compelling” or even “arguable” about the case for invading Iraq in 2002? How does Pollack’s position with Brookings or the Clinton administration count as an argument for its reasonableness?
I do, however, think that Pollack’s connection to the Clinton White House, as well as Bill Clinton’s (and Hillary Clinton’s) enthusiastic support for this war suggests that Steve Labonne’s hope that the US will stop making the world a very scary place in January 2009 is wildly optimistic.
Steve LaBonne 08.24.07 at 6:44 pm
Well, I yield to few people in my disdain for the ingrained hawkishness of the clitonistas, but even so I’m reasonably confident that Hillary wouldn’t haul off and start dropping bombs on Iran. At least, that’s what I tell myself in order to keep my sanity…
Steve LaBonne 08.24.07 at 6:45 pm
That was supposed to be “clintonistas”, for those with dirty minds.
airth10 08.24.07 at 7:05 pm
Where was the failure of the international community when it comes to Iraq?
Iraq was contained by the international community. The international community was pragmatic and realistic about how much or how little it could influence Saddam.
America also failed in its thinking that the invasion of Iraq would have a positive effect on the Palestinian/ Israeli dispute. Again American policy/politics failed. What is being re-realized is that the old tried and true methods of diplomacy and ‘soft power’ work best in dealing with international disputes, not the bulling methods America has used.
Seth Edenbaum 08.24.07 at 7:23 pm
Josh Marshall, Very serious person
I’m shocked, shocked etc.
Steve LaBonne 08.24.07 at 7:25 pm
Marshall has learned a great deal since the Iraq war began- not meant as a dig, because as one who used to listen to the Serious People, so have I- but he still has some distance to go.
dsquared 08.24.07 at 8:24 pm
Isn’t the problem with this formulation that it eliminates the possibility of intervention in cases where “we liberals†would actually want it
not really because one would hope that any genuine humanitarian intervention worth supporting ought to be able to get a UN resolution behind it.
abb1 08.24.07 at 8:25 pm
Yeah, not very convincing, all this. If you listen to what the ‘vital interests’ people (like, say, those Mearsheimer and Walt guys) are actually saying, you’ll quickly discover that they are just as deranged as Friedman and Goldberg. Same insanity, different kind of bullshit.
Anthony 08.24.07 at 8:49 pm
¨one would hope that any genuine humanitarian intervention worth supporting ought to be able to get a UN resolution behind it.¨
Hardly likely if the constituent nations of the UN have Hobbesian foreign policies based on ¨vital interests being at stake¨.
BillCinSD 08.24.07 at 8:56 pm
To make my Russia/US comparison more explicit: Can anyone imagine contemporary Russia taking a leading role in building institutional arrangements like Bretton Woods?
Can anyone imagine, the current US leadership doing this?
Shelby 08.24.07 at 9:01 pm
one would hope that any genuine humanitarian intervention worth supporting ought to be able to get a UN resolution behind it
Do you have any examples in mind?
Slocum 08.24.07 at 9:20 pm
The quoted paragraph means what it says and no more and is if anything more applicable to the blockade of Cuba than anything in the Middle East
Oh, of course. I’m sorry. Now that I read the post again, I can’t imagine why I thought you were referring to Israel and its Jewish supporters in the U.S. My mistake.
not really because one would hope that any genuine humanitarian intervention worth supporting ought to be able to get a UN resolution behind it.
Why would anyone expect China (given its relationship with Mugabe and the government in Khartoum) to get behind a UN resolution for a humanitarian intervention? Come to that, given China’s treatment of Tibet, why would anyone expect it to do anything other than block humanitarian interventions? China quite clearly, for obvious self-interested reasons, would not want the UN to authorize interventions into any country’s ‘internal affairs’.
And the same applies to Russia (think of Chechnya). And even to France — I mean, hell, think of Mitterand’s absurd fears of Anglo-Saxon domination in Africa leading him to support the Hutu genocidaires.
No, post Iraq and post Bush, humanitarian interventions led by the U.S. will be off the table. Bill Clinton felt bad, after the fact, about not intervening in Rwanda. Bush’s successors will cite Iraq and not even feel responsible for not intervening.
James Wimberley 08.24.07 at 9:24 pm
Ad #26 Steve R:
“Bear in mind that even the Euros did nothing in Bosnia and Kosovo until Clinton got so frustrated that he led the military efforts in those two cases.”
My recollection is that it was first Jacques Chirac who broke the sitting-on-your-hands consensus when the Serbs besieging Sarajevo kidnapped French soldiers, and ordered them recaptured by force, short-circuiting the UN. Then the Brits and French stationed forces in brigade strength on Mount Hindman with artillery, snipers, etc and robust rules of engagement, which rapidly punctured the myth of Serb military prowess, along with NATO -that is, American – air strikes. Meanwhile the Americans had been training the Croat Army as the lesser of two evils. The Croats defeated the Serbs, who basically sued for peace. At no point were US forces in action in Bosnia on the ground.
And what’s the evidence for Clinton’s political leadership?
abb1 08.24.07 at 9:56 pm
@40 …for obvious self-interested reasons…
Incidentally, the same applies to the US, Slocum. Palestine, Colombia – should China, Russia and France go ahead and intervene there?
Shelby 08.24.07 at 11:03 pm
abb1,
Are you suggesting that France does not intervene in Palestine? Or that the US should be upset about it? I think you’re basing your comment on slocum’s France/Hutu reference, rather than China/Tibet, but it’s not clear. In any event, given China’s active outreach programs in South America, I’d be surprised if they don’t have game in Colombia.
John Emerson 08.24.07 at 11:34 pm
Damn. I’m late.
How about the Canine Auto-fellatio Justification? — “Because we can!”
Theoretically, that might have ruled out the Iraq War too, but then there’s the PeeWee Herman Proviso: — “That’s what I was trying to do!”
All we’ll ever have to do will just be to draw a target around wherever it is that we end up landing.
My plans to emigrate to Canada are on hold until I calculate whether we can expect a hot American-Canadian war over the Northwest Passage and water supplies during my lifetime.
John Emerson 08.24.07 at 11:36 pm
“Clitoristas”. Heh
Sebastian Holsclaw 08.24.07 at 11:44 pm
“Iraq was contained by the international community. The international community was pragmatic and realistic about how much or how little it could influence Saddam.”
Oh come on. France, Germany and Russia were all trying to end sanctions completely in late 2001 and early 2002. The inspectors hadn’t been in place since 1998, and the UN didn’t even bother to try to get them back in until Bush had 100,000 troops at the door.
You can say all sorts of awful things about Bush in Iraq, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that the international community had Saddam ‘contained’ on an ongoing basis. He was contained only so long as the US absolutely insisted–not one little bit more, and often less.
Slocum 08.25.07 at 12:20 am
@40 …for obvious self-interested reasons…
Incidentally, the same applies to the US, Slocum.
No, the same does not apply. In China’s case the ‘obvious, self-interested reasons’ are that because china is a non-democratic state that oppresses ethnic (Tibetan) and religious (Falun Gong) minorities and because it does everything it can to avoid having these issues raised in its international relationships, therefore, it has (China-specific) reasons to oppose humanitarian interventions in general — as these are aimed at preventing authoritarian governments from abusing their own citizens. These considerations do not apply to the U.S. and other liberal democracies.
Palestine, Colombia – should China, Russia and France go ahead and intervene there?
Huh? The question concerns the willingness of countries on the U.N. security council to vote for interventions to prevent or stop humanitarian catastrophes (e.g. Rwanda, Darfur).
engels 08.25.07 at 12:44 am
humanitarian interventions in general… are aimed at preventing authoritarian governments from abusing their own citizens
Really? I thought they were intended to prevent imminent humanitarian catastrophes, regardless of the political structure of the state responsible.
novakant 08.25.07 at 2:31 am
Hmm, it’s been fifteen years since I’ve read the Leviathan, but I can say with a fair amount of certainty that Daniel misses the point here: the state of nature simply isn’t feasible for any prolonged period of time and even the strongest can never feel safe in it, contractual agreements aren’t some sort of peacenik ueberbau but rather an expression of mankind’s primal need for security.
bad Jim 08.25.07 at 8:21 am
I think the problem here is the confusion between “disinterested” and “uninterested”. Even Serious American thinkers confuse the two. Hewing to ancient Western tradition, we assert the right to invade any country we can find on the map.
abb1 08.25.07 at 9:31 am
Slocum, 49: …to prevent or stop humanitarian catastrophes (e.g. Rwanda, Darfur)…
Chris Hedges, (…foreign correspondent for nearly 20 years, working as the bureau chief in the Middle East and the Balkans, as well as in other assignments, for The New York Times from 1990 to 2005. He previously worked for The Dallas Morning News, National Public Radio and The Christian Science Monitor. He has reported from over fifty countries in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Europe.) writes in his Gaza Diary:
That’s not some redneck paramilitary, that’s soldiers, official government soldiers, most probably college educated. And this has been happening for decades, day after day, and is happening now, as we speak, read a newspaper.
Now, in 1999 Tom Friedman wrote: “Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you.” Explain to me why China and France shouldn’t bomb Israel into the stone age right now. Or, for that matter, to intervene in the US for what it’s done in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq.
Here’s something from Colombia:
How is it different from Darfur? It’s different, of course, because it’s on a different continent and because Colombia’s government is a friend of the US government.
Ben Alpers 08.25.07 at 10:08 am
@26 (and 29): I’m still waiting to hear the “arguable” and “compelling” reasons that the U.S. should have invaded Iraq…
Nell 08.25.07 at 2:01 pm
will: sovereign, unaccountable but nevertheless the guarantor of a harsh-but-stable neoliberal order.
You’re joking, right? Putting aside the invasion and occupation of Iraq, purely a war of choice, what’s “stabilizing” about the fight we’re now picking with Iran?
And what’s Russia doing that’s a tenth as destabilizing?
Reid McClure 08.25.07 at 2:52 pm
“So what are we gonna due about an ‘International Community’ that refuses to act in the face of human rights abuses, ethnic cleansing, genocide, and terrorism?
“If you can answer that question and come up with a way for the ‘IC’ to effectively replace tyrants with rule of law and respect for human rights, I guarantee you that you will no longer have to concern yourself with ‘constraints of international law on American foreign policy.'”
Steve – You’ve knocked the ball out of the park!
Great question, and point well taken.
Slocum 08.25.07 at 3:11 pm
“but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.”
Corroboration for this implausible, inflammatory accusation can be found … where? Confirmation that it is Israeli government or military policy to kill Palestinian children for sport can be found … where? (And are you unaware of how close this accusation is to the ‘blood libel’)?
Given that China, itself, is non-democratic and has a very poor record with respect to human rights, it is not a good candidate for humanitarian interventions. But even at that, there is a country where China really should intervene — North Korea.
In general, I would prefer to see more rather than fewer interventions. It is simply appalling that people continue to live as prisoners in countries with brutal, murderous, unelected regimes. Democracy and human rights are fundamental rights.
But given the political divisions between and within liberal democracies (as one can see in microcosm on CT), I see very little prospect of humanitarian interventions in the foreseeable future. “Never again” is B.S.
abb1 08.25.07 at 3:55 pm
how close this accusation is to the ‘blood libel’
As close, I suppose, as documented fact is to libel.
For a person who (assuming you’re an American) is paying for chainsaws used to cut throats to 17-year-old girls and for rifles used to shoot children for sport you, Slocum, have a lot of nerve being so self-righteous. It’s sorta comical, really.
will 08.25.07 at 5:13 pm
BillCinSD, nell: I was actually thinking of earlier administrations, particularly Clinton. I think Bush foreign policy is aberrant, but I suppose you might argue that it is the logical and inevitable outcome of our hegemonic position. I hope not — Dems in ’08 for sane imperial management!
engels 08.25.07 at 5:28 pm
stable neoliberal order
Stable neoliberal order is a contradiction in terms, of course. The real question is for how much longer the contradictions can be contained…
Ragout 08.25.07 at 8:18 pm
Chris Hedges’ numerous errors and falsehoods about Israel “killing children for sport” have been documented.
J Thomas 08.25.07 at 9:41 pm
Ragout, I looked at your link. It listed ten errors attributed to Hedges. In most cases the “proof” that Hedges was wrong come from conflicting statements from israeli public figures or israeli newspapers. This is not in any way proof.
In one case, he quoted an arab mayor saying that israelis used 1/3 his water supply even though they had far fewer numbers. The rebuttal said that israelis took half the water. There was big dispute about *how many* wells the israelis used to do that.
He said the israelis prevented members of that community from digging their own wells. The rebuttal said that israelis had no legal authority to stop well digging. It did not deny that they did in practice prevent well digging.
For the particular case of israelis “killing palestinian children for sport” there was no rebuttal. Instead the claim was that palestinian children threw stones, and the israeli soldiers were under stress, etc. Hedges had reported that. The central point of the rebuttal came at the beginning. “First, the sheer malice of this comment speaks for itself”. He must be antisemitic to report the incident. And then they argue that if it was true, then why was it that on one particular day only one child was killed?
To believe these rebuttals you have to start out believing that the israeli government would never lie or misrepresent what they do.
So if you want to establish how many wells there are at a particular israeli settlement, you don’t ask the water advisor to the israeli defense minister, you *count the wells*. And if you want to know whether the water is pumped into gaza or out of gaza, you *look at the pumping logs*.
Etc. These rebuttals are utterly unconvincing to people who look at them with an open mind. Hedges may be wrong on many or most details, but there is no credible evidence here that he is. Unless we assume the israeli government always tells the truth.
Ragout 08.25.07 at 10:29 pm
J Thomas,
How could you miss the statement from Palestinian Water Commissioner Nabil A-Sharif who says that Hedges’ charges about Israel piping water from Gaza to Israel are false?
The general rebuttal to Hedges’ claims about “shooting children for sport” is that although Hedges was there, he acknowledges not seeing the child shot, nor seeing the shot fired, nor interviewing Palestinian or Israeli officials to learn more details. He has acknowledged that he wasn’t using standard reporting techniques:
So naturally, he doesn’t report what he hasn’t personally witnessed: the violence the previous day, the attempted suicide bombing earlier in the day elsewhere in Gaza, Palestinian parents who encourage their children to throw stones at Israeli troops and become “martyrs.”
Is Hedges’ testimony more credible than that of the Israeli military spokesperson who said “soldiers had been under attack with stones and bottles” when they opened fire on “a crowd trying to tear down surrounding Jewish settlements in Gush Katif.” I don’t see why, given Hedges’ admittedly limited viewpoint, and his numerous demonstrable errors in the same article.
J Thomas 08.26.07 at 12:03 am
Ragout, of course Hedges’ testimony is more credible than that of an israeli PR guy. However, the two do not conflict. Hedges’ statement is in no way incompatible with what the israeli PR guy said, and vice versa. However, my thoughts about this may be colored by my memory of the original article (or perhaps a similar article about similar events). I didn’t today review the details of what he wrote.
I don’t remember him saying it was an intentional result of official israeli policy. It could as easily have been a game developed by a few bored guards, or even an accident where they didn’t realise the results of their behavior.
engels 08.26.07 at 12:24 am
Ragout – Ever heard of self-serving testimony? Ceteris paribus we assume that the testimony of a military spokesman, who speaks on behalf of the organisation which is implicated in the crime under investigation, is less reliable than that of an independent witness to it.
SG 08.27.07 at 6:41 am
You are a sick man to believe this. A sick, sick man.
Comments on this entry are closed.