RE: JUSTIFYING MILITARY FORCE (Unilateral Military Force)
Thanks for posting that article, Les. But what puzzles me is that for at least a week after the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan, none of the American papers or radio/TV news programs I regularly follow raised the question that observers abroad immediately raised: i.e., if the Americans claim the right to use military force unilaterally against other countries/groups in the name of "self-defense," what is prevent other countries from claiming the same right?
At first, such doubts that were raised over here had to do with less fundamental issues, e.g.: 1) Was this an instance of "Wag the Dog"? 2) Was that factory in Sudan just a pharmaceutical plant, or did it actually produce nerve gas? The assumption here being: if the latter was true, we did have the right to bomb it; 3) Just how effective are all those expensive missiles in the war against terrorism? Again, assumption: if they are effective, they should be used.
At first, then, the general reaction was one of approval: America must act decisively, even unilaterally, to defend itself against threats to its security.
Only gradually did we get around to asking the fundamental question that foreigners raised at the outset, and that is being raised in the Christian Science Monitor article you cite.
Why is that? I think it is because the Sudan/Afghanistan strikes were in an accepted American tradition (what I like to call the Lone Cowboy Tradition). The bombing of Libya, the invasion of Panama, etc., etc., etc. So it took a while for the real nature of the problem to sink in...
Just my opinion.
jbe |
