Regime Rhetoric Reply

[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.

On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?

There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).

Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.

There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?

If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.

Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.

I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.

Sincerely, Roger Larson

[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:

Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep. (pg. 82) (italics mine)

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.