« spoof dow site |
Main
| just in time for christmas »
Today’s cheerleaders for unilateral methods have convinced themselves that the more our power grows, the less we have need of others, and hence the more we can consult a purely national standard. As the architects of the postwar order understood, however, the reverse is true. The more powerful the state, the more important that it submit to widely held norms and consensual methods. The more it overawes the remainder of the system, the more vital it is that restraints are laid upon that power, either by itself or by others. It is to the enduring fame of that generation of American statesmen that they imbibed that lesson, as it was the genius of the postwar system to have instantiated it.
Toward Universal Empire: The Dangerous Quest for Absolute Security by David C. Hendrickson.
Comments
This is a pretty interesting piece, although he falls into the trap of giving a "liberal" cover to the past incarnations of U.S. imperialism. While the "Bush Doctrine" clearly signals a new phase, U.S. imperialism has never had a humanitarian goal.
Posted by: zagg | December 3, 2002 1:04 PM
Are you suggesting that the "Bush Doctrine" has a humanitarian goal?
Posted by: B o y W o n d e r | December 3, 2002 8:44 PM
knowing zagg, I think he meant the "Bush Doctrine" is a turn for the far worse in terms of humanitarianism -- not the better.
Posted by: mj | December 3, 2002 9:27 PM
Test
Posted by: Test | December 4, 2002 3:43 AM
Yes. The "Bush Doctrine" is an aggressive step towards the U.S. being openly imperialist in its aims. My other contention is that the U.S. government has never used its might anywhere simply for huminatarian aims. There's always something in it for the U.S.
To quote Lawrence Korb, a former US assistant defence secretary on the first Gulf War. "If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
Posted by: zagg | December 4, 2002 8:04 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58419-2002Nov30.html
Posted by: d fresh | December 4, 2002 11:11 AM