Here’s my question. What exactly does this mean? Are we no longer going to live by established international norms? Are we not going to abide by our treaty obligations, which I should note are the “Supreme Law of the Land,” with relation to establishing just cause for going to war? What exactly is the conservative beef with the global test comment? Besides that it’s a tidy soundbite, of course.
Global Test, my definition, is checking with the desires and opinions of other countries regarding our global policies and actions and allowing their best interest to influence our decisions.
International norms? What is that and who decides the norm? What if the “norm” is wrong? The norm is not always the correct choice.
What treaty did we break? Who said anything about breaking treaties?
edit: The beef is that why should other countries have say in our decisions. We are happy to listen but why do we need to get anyones approval? For that matter, why would England (or you pick) get approval from us?
**Global Test, my definition, is checking with the desires and opinions of other countries regarding our global policies and actions and allowing their best interest to influence our decisions. **
I think that’s what Bush means- he isn’t going to let other nations exercise a de facto veto over American policy. It’s the right stance to adopt.
International norms? What is that and who decides the norm? What if the “norm” is wrong?
There is a long established norm, and it doesn’t require approval from any other nations. I say again, some kind of norm is necessary. If we’re to toss the old one, we have got to formulate a new one and make sure everyone’s clear on it. Otherwise our actions are arbitrary, and arbitrariness is not good for international order.
Vitus, are you saying that we broke norm and if so which norm di we break?
In fairness, I believe Kerry coined that phrase during the debate. I wager he regrets it substantially. The concept he meant to express (I think…) is not well conveyed by that vernacular. Bush did well to pounce on that.
That said, Bush’s philosophy of maintaining our first strike capability is critical to the deterent aspect of our national security. As a nation, we must have the capability and will to act independantly in matters of our own security and defense. In this era, that also means pre-emptive military actions.
Bartering that away to other nations or communities of nations blunts our sword when it must be honed to a razor edge and ready for instantaneous action.
The norm that holds wars should be defensive, and a last resort, after all other options have failed.
“In fairness, I believe Kerry coined that phrase during the debate.”
In fairness, he didn’t coin the phrase, he stumbled onto it in response to a question. The coinage came with every Republican on the post debate shows and the Sunday shows repeating it over and over again.
Have we broken that “norm.”
Yes, we have. Or don’t you think invading Iraq, even assuming that we believed they had WMDs, was a break with past tradition and practices?
“What treaty did we break? Who said anything about breaking treaties?”
People around the world could easily claim that we have not lived up to our UN obligations as expressed in the charter, i.e., to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
yeah they could argue that, but I would say they could argue it right up to the point that says “inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations” then IMO the argument falls apart because our actions, although not popular or based on accurate information, where consistent with the purpose of the UN.
I would argue that other members fo the UN didn’t live up to their obligations by threatening Saddam with empty threats and then not being willing to step up when the time came for action:0)
The only “norm” in war is nothing is normal. You have to be adaptive.
**I don’t think we broke from traditional norms or practices. **
We did, or it wouldn’t be so controversial. Preventive war is a new thing for us.
In addition, under the Constitution, the authority to go to war is vested in the President, and the Congress.
Just the Congress, actually.
Further, if you really want to get picky, in the case of the current war, America has permission through existing UN Security council resolutions.
If you think I give a hoot about UN resolutions one way or the other, you’re mistaken.
I thought that is what you meant but just wanted to be clear. I would agree with you in general and I think just about everyone does. The conversation starts when you reach the “all other options have failed”. My problem is there will always be someone who thinks there is another option. I would bet for any war there has been a dissenting group who said we should try just one more thing but ultimately the decision has to be made.
I would submit that after 9/11 and with the quickly changing landscape of the nuclear power world that we may not always be able to afford the luxury of being defensive. There are some really disturbing trends regarding WMD in countries who will not buy the old MAD scenario and that really changes things. I think at this point we have to leave all options on the table.
Just for fun, if the global intel had been right on Saddam and when we got there he used chem or bio weapons on our soldiers and we found programs for, or munition dumps containg, those things then would preemption be a conversation? Would people care then?
The only “norm” in war is nothing is normal. You have to be adaptive.
Ah, I see. “Adaptive.”
Like I said, arbitrariness is bad for the international order. Especially when the nation acting arbitrarily is a superpower.
How many countries is pre-emptive war an option?
We could say n korea, iran, syria, sudan. Maybe there are a few others.
What are we going to do to the other 50 countries in which terrorists reside?
We can say, well, 90% of terrorists live in the middle east, but it only took 18 living in the US for 9/11. That’s not the best wording, but my point is that it takes very few to carry out an attack.
I say that war is something that we’re good at, it’s easy for people to understand, and a lot of people are angry with terrorists. I just seems like the real work to prevent terrorism will happen outside of war.
"Articles in the UN charter specifically state that a nation has a right to self defense including “anticipatory self defense.”
"
that’s all fine, but we didn’t use anticipatory self-defense as our justification to the international community for going into Iraq. We used broken resolutions and WMD. In fact, I’m pretty sure, although I can’t find the quote right now, that Pres Bush said we were going to remove Saddm before he proved to be a threat to US security. I’ll look for that quote.
"Further, if you really want to get picky, in the case of the current war, America has permission through existing UN Security council resolutions. Specifically Res 678 which was never reached, nullified, or rescinded. "
i’m not saying that what we did was illegal, just pointing out the trend that is illustrated by the conservative repitition of the “no global tests” mantra.
I would submit that after 9/11 and with the quickly changing landscape of the nuclear power world that we may not always be able to afford the luxury of being defensive.
Yes, I keep hearing that. And what I’m saying is that, if that’s the case, we need to propose an alternative standard by which we decide to wage war.
Just for fun, if the global intel had been right on Saddam and when we got there he used chem or bio weapons on our soldiers and we found programs for, or munition dumps containg, those things then would preemption be a conversation? Would people care then?
Mostly not, I suppose. I would, though, because the question should never have been whether he had them or not, but whether we had evidence that he intended to use them against us.