Monday, February 13, 2006

Is War Always Wrong?

My good friend James cites a book by Philippe Sands, which criticizes the President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for undermining the post-World War II international system. Regardless of whether or not the War in Iraq actually did this, the more important question is whether the post-World War II international system is such a good thing.

The twin purposes of this system were to eliminate interstate war and increase prosperity. The post-WWII system brought us economic institutions like the IMF, the World Bank and political institutions like the UN and international law - which the various rules created by international treaties over the past fifty years are called.

Now I'm all for prosperity, so I won't address the economic aspects of the post-WWII international system, but I believe it's important to consider whether the elimination of interstate war is the ultimate end toward which our international system should be designed.

I, for one am not convinced that interstate war is always wrong (few would argue that the invasion of Afghanistan was bad thing). As Carl Von Clausewitz famously stated, "war is the extension of politics." War is simply a means by which states attempt to achieve their ends. If those ends are positive and the negatives of war do not outweigh those positives, then war is actually a good thing.

The question then is this: If war is not always wrong, does it make sense for the elimination of it to be the ultimate purpose of our international system? I believe it does not. And since the UN, the bulk of international law and the post-WWII international system are all designed with the ultimate goal of eliminating interstate war, I do not think that undermining them as Bush and Blair are accused of doing is a bad thing.

There are, however, many evils in the world that are always wrong: tyranny, genocide, famine, poverty, bad governance, terrorism, racism, social/cultural/religious oppression, to name a few. While war sometimes is a good thing, these evils never are. It makes sense, then, to redesign our international institutions to address those things in the world that are always wrong. The good news is that increasingly international organizations and international law are being designed to deal with just these issues - NATO (post Cold War), the Council of Europe and the ICC as well as a large chunk of human rights law, such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, all do just that.

But the post-WWII international system was designed to eliminate war by imposing rules of sovereignty and non-intervention. In other words, it sought to reduce war by specifically not addressing the "always evils," such as oppression, genocide, etc. This is where the system went wrong and where it must be changed.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

good news for dems

A friend of mine just made a pitch for Mark Warner for President.

I haven't yet decided on a favorite for '08 and that's good news. Why? Because most of those mentioned as possible candidates - Mark Warner, Joe Biden, Evan Bayh, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson - have lots of potential. Hell, this list looks a lot more like a primary field for DLC chair than for Democratic presidential candidate.

So let me add this to the mix: Ron Goldstein's Case for Joe Biden.

Oh, and since the SotU just ended and I never got to execute the Princetonians Only instruction (see bottom of page), let me add: Whoooaa, sit down you suck! (na na, I'm just playin Joe).

note to dems: hire this man's speechwriter

As always, I'm a sucker for Bush's speeches (second Inaugural is still the best oration I've ever heard). Liberals wonder why half of America loves this man...listen to him talk. It's inspiring:

"Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal -- we seek the end of tyranny in our world."
"Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace."
"Americans should not fear our economic future, because we intend to shape it."
"A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency -- and stays at it until they're back on their feet."


Basically everything he said, at least on the foreign policy side, I agree with (Suzanne Nossel over at Democracy Arsenal largely says the same). My tree hugging colleagues will surely note the disconnect between Bush's actions and his words. To which I say, good point. So, let me use this as a starting point for discussion, since it's a topic that interests me greatly.

1) How do ends differ across the political spectrum (traditional conservative to neoconservative to third way liberal to traditional liberal)?
2) How do ways differ across the spectrum in the pursuit of these ends?
3) How do ideas about effective means differ across the political spectrum?
4) What values influence the choices of ways, means and ends across the political spectrum?

Developing...