Scholastic Debating: On (One of) the Bush Doctrine(s)
Mr Boonton (?) has offered that the Bush Doctrine would be an interesting topic for debate (This was originally written for my blog. If Dan Trabue, a frequent commenter here, who thought this style of debate has merit, wants to take this up here and on his blog … I’m game). I’ve suggested that a better method of debate might be for each side to express the other’s point of view. This might be viewed as a “scholastic” debate in that the medieval scholastics such as St. Thomas Aquinas used something like this dialectical method in their writings (they expressed their point, raised all the objections which and countered them in turn at which point the issue was proven). So, I suggest that my interlocutor and I enter into a short experiment in this sort of debate. I will restate the Doctrine as I understand it and then proceed. My suggestion would be that in the comments of this essay, I be corrected by my interlocotur and any number of other commenters until the expression of their objections (they are the “con” side) are represented. Then, I will restart their case (as amended) and offer a short rebuttal. It will then be my interlocutor’s opportunity to offer (on his blog) the case for “pro” side. I will correct, he will restate and rebut.
There is an understanding between nations that sovereign states cannot be attacked, and that any such attack is morally wrong earning at the least the condemnation of other nations and at the worst causes that state itself to lose the protection sovereign nations enjoy from such attacks. There are actions within a state that a state may take which cause that state to lose that protection, such as engaging in genocide within its borders. The Bush Doctrine holds that harboring and supporting terrorist organizations within a states borders is such an action which causes it to lose that protection.
The left and progressives hold the “con” position. That is, the support and harboring of terrorists within one’s state is does not cause that state to lose the protection from attack granted to sovereign states. I will now (below the fold) enumerate the reasons why. Commenters should either add reasons which I miss or correct my wording and correctly state the reasons I give.
- Today between states there exists an unprecedented asymmetry of power between states. Contrast the abilities to project power and influence beyond their borders between for example the US and Syria, the Russian Federation and Georgia to take some modern examples. Terror is a last resort response that the “little nations” or peoples resort to when the power asymmetry is such that no direct confronation is tenable. Therefore defining association with terror with the surrender the protection of sovereignty is an unfair position of the strong.
- The protection of sovereignty is not a thing which a state may by its actions give up. It is an ontological character of the nation state. This is the position of many pacifists, there there is no justified aggressive war.
- Most, if not all, nations have at one time supported terror of one kind or another, such as the US regarding El Salvador. Does the fact that we did that at one time, mean that today, China could attack us ethically because the US has abrogated the protection of sovereignty? Many nations are very old, how far back can we go in history in or search for atrocity to justify current aggression. Since this progression means no state is innocent, since it is absurd to thing no state should be afforded such protections, therefore all states should be so protected.
Ok, that’s all I could come up with. Help me out here. Add more and correct what I’ve got.
Filed under: Conservative • Liberal • Mark O. • Politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
This could be time consuming. Can I begin with a little correction?
You state: There is an understanding between nations that sovereign states cannot be attacked…
And
The Bush Doctrine holds that harboring and supporting terrorist organizations within a states borders is such an action which causes it to lose that protection.
I would suggest that it might be better stated:
I. There is an understanding between nations that sovereign states should not be attacked unless they pose an imminent threat to another nation. That is, unless Nation A is bombing, invading or otherwise threatening Nation B, Nation B (or its allies) have no moral nor legal right to invade Nation A with deadly force.
II. The Bush doctrine changes that to say, IF Nation B THINKS that Nation A is a threat or may be eventually, that is reason enough to invade or otherwise attack with deadly force.
What d’ya think?
Dan,
There are at least two Bush Doctrines. One is pretty much as stated above. Bush had said
That was the “original” Bush doctrine and was stated during the Afghan buildup.
The second,
That seems to be the statement which you are interpreting above.
I think the first is probably more important. I’m willing to debate both. Are you conceding the first (basically the statement above)? Or are you just not interested in debating it?
I think Bush probably thinks this, as you quoted:
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
But it seems to me that this comes down to the same thing that I said:
The Bush doctrine changes that to say, IF Nation B THINKS that Nation A is a threat or may be eventually, that is reason enough to invade or otherwise attack with deadly force.
That is, IF BUSH (ie, the US) THINKS that you harbor or support terrorists (and, in fact, if you do), then that is reason enough for the US to attack with deadly force.
Dan,
We don’t “attack” every hostile regime. You know that, why do you pretend otherwise.
But it sounds like you’re OK with it the statement as given. Your insistence on “thinks” is an epistemological argument. Do you really think that is important?
I’ve stated three reasons for being against the statement. Do you have more, or would you reword my arguments against?
Dan,
That might better read “an epistemological objection”.
I did not at all state that we attack every hostile regime. I’m saying that the Bush Doctrine states that believing there to be terrorist support by a nation is JUSTIFICATION for actions up to and including attacks.
I fully believe that Bush is NOT hellbent on attacking every nation it does not like willy nilly. For one thing, he simply can’t afford to. I’m not saying that conservatives WANT to attack other nations on a whim nor that they are opposed to diplomacy. I’ve not said that nor intended to imply it.
Just to clarify.
As to your thoughts on the “left’s” position…
The left and progressives hold the “con” position. That is, the support and harboring of terrorists within one’s state is does not cause that state to lose the protection from attack granted to sovereign states.
The “Left” and progressives think many things, but it may be a fair summary to suggest that in general, many of the Leftish side of things maintain that we ought not attack another nation unless we are in imminent danger or under attack.
So, the fact (if that is even the case) that terrorists may be supported to some degree by a nation is not justification for a deadly assault in and of itself.
Okay, so far?
I’m sorry, backing up a bit, you stated:
But it sounds like you’re OK with it the statement as given. Your insistence on “thinks” is an epistemological argument. Do you really think that is important?
Yes, I think it is important. Our intelligence has proven to be wrong before. The imprecise nature of our investigation and watch for terrorism and WMDs, etc, is ONE very large reason why many on the Left have assumed the Conservative stance (abandoned by many on the Right) of Prudence: We may THINK that another nation has WMDs or is harboring terrorists, but sometimes we are wrong.
Because of the nature of deadly invasions and the good chance for the harming of innocents, we have an obligation to be WAY beyond “thinking” we know exactly where those WMDs or terrorists are.
Additionally, as has been noted by many, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. If “support for terrorists” is a criteria for use of deadly force, then other nations would be within their rights to invade the US for supporting Nicaraguan terrorists in the 1980s, right?
Dan,
I’m having a little trouble interpreting your comments. Just to be clear, if you agree with this format what is “supposed” to happen now is that you assist me in stating in my own words the “con” arguments. You will, now or after we are done with this, restate the argument and then try to reproduce forcefully a numbered list of arguments “for”. I will then try to correct you in comments. When we both have our “forceful” arguments from the “other” sides point of view, then we rebut them. That ends the exercise.
The point of the current exercise here on this blog is for you to assist me in stating correctly and forcefully the “con” (against) case regarding the statement above.
It seems to me you’re suggesting adding a 4th item in the above list which might read:
Are you suggesting we add that?
As for the “one nations freedom fighter” is another nations terrorist I thought I covered that in #1. What needs clarification there.
On the Nicaraguan question, I’m a little muddy on whether that would or would not justify others invading us. Yes, I think it would. That was covered somewhat in #3. Should “El Salvador” read “Nicaragua”?
Dan,
In case that first paragraph is unclear. What your comments at this point should be aimed at is correcting and critiquing my numbered list of arguments “con” the statement.
fyi: I have no power at my home and that may continue for a few days (thanks, Ike!), so my answers may be sporadic.
I apologize if I have been unclear. What I was trying to do was clarify our starting points before moving on to your statement of the “con” argument. I think we’ve established that the Bush Doctrine may be summed up as you suggested (keeping in mind my comments).
Now, where you say:
The left and progressives hold the “con” position. That is, the support and harboring of terrorists within one’s state is does not cause that state to lose the protection from attack granted to sovereign states.
I wanted to clarify this:
The “Left” and progressives think many things, but it may be a fair summary to suggest that in general, many of the Leftish side of things maintain that we ought not attack another nation unless we are in imminent danger or under attack.
So, the fact (if that is even the case) that terrorists may be supported to some degree by a nation is not justification in and of itself for a deadly assault.
If we’re agreed on the preliminaries, I will begin to consider your presentation of the cons.
I guess that means you agree with my previous clarification and so I’ll move on. I hope I’m doing this in the manner you were looking for.
As to your three suppositions about the Left’s position, I’m going to have to just answer for myself. I do not know that I could say that “the Left” agrees or disagrees with these positions.
1. I think I agree with your first point, at least to a degree: I agree that those who feel oppressed and don’t have the wherewithal to strike back in the traditional way (war) may well resort to more terroristic/guerilla methods. I don’t know that I agree that I think “defining association with terror with the surrender the protection of sovereignty is an unfair position of the strong.”
2. I’m not sure if “the Left” thinks this or not. I think that if a nation commits criminal behavior, then they ought to expect appropriate repercussions. One problem that we’ve had is DEFINING criminal behavior at the national level. Most countries have been able to justify, at least in their own minds, many horrendous actions while recognizing how horrible it is when they see it in others – especially others that are not their allies.
It would be my position that there ARE certain actions we as a collection of civilized nations can agree upon and criminalize: Genocide, slavery, crimes against children, assassination, acts of terrorism, etc. AND, if a nation violates one of these laws, then there should be repercussions.
3. I agree, most nations have supported terroristic behavior. That does not legitimize other nations ALSO embracing it. However, if nations want to band together to outlaw certain behaviors like terrorism, then it must be universally accepted. We can’t make exceptions (“well, this time it was justified.”) but must say that it is always wrong.
Is that the sort of clarification you are looking for?