Andrew Sullivan ought to go back to trolling craigslist for bareback hookups, an altogether more wholesome pastime than crouching wantonly before the Pentagonal glory hole and hoping for a little, er, intervention. Here he is defending something Here is some ridiculous Andy Sullivan Guestblurgher defending something that Anne-Marie Slaughter--and with the marvelous exception of Samantha Power, was ever a chick apparat so appropriately surnamed?--calls the Responsibility to Protect, rather glibly IRCized as R2P, as if intended to be textulated intertwixt giddy tweens: OMG did u gIz c r2p @ da VMAz last nite LOL she wuz drest up in a manuhtee custoom!ROFL! Arendt's error was living too soon; Eichmann may have trumped these motherfuckers when it came to evil, but he was a goddamn sight less fucking banal. So apparently Humanitarian Intervention is out and R2P is in; I return to my metaphor; these people are more changeable than teenagers in an Urban Outfitters; mom I told you I wanted Levi's slim jeans these are Levi's skinny jeans god you are so stoopid I don't want these 511s I want 513s why do you hate me so much???!!!! Sullivan attempts to make some kind of taxonomic distinction between the two, aping Slaughter, but insofar as there is any difference, it appears that the new, ahem, doctrine makes so-called sovereignty even more contingent upon the whims of the west than it was under the humanitarian rubric, although also, maybe, the opposite? I don't know; you tell me. Either the case is herein made that this new Responsibility frees the West to forcefully intervene more often, or the case is herein made that it does not . . . well, in fact, disregard that either/or. Both cases are made, and in the course of offering a clarification, we find a muddle.
Anyway, the contingency of sovereignty now apparently rests on what yinz leaders r doin to yinz own people. THIS IS NOT TOM HOBBES OLD SOVEREIGNTY. This is the new Chevy Malibu, um, Volt, um, Cruze, um, THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S BUICK. But pay attention to the prestidigitation; the new definition of sovereignty is a crackpot reintroduction of a subject's belonging to his sovereign. When a leader fucks with his own people, he is a leader no more. Now this is just hysterical, but you will see it wherever war is being promoted. It is an objectively true, empirically verifiable fact that Barack Obama has ordered the deaths of more people than Muammar Qaddafi or Bashar al-Assad. But not his own people. Ergo the moral duty falls to the greater murderer to murder the lesser because it is worse to kill your neighbor somehow than some random dude across town. Well, actually, given the Hobbesian social compact, it is. And you know, by the way, the next time you go worrying about a Hobbesian state of nature, you may recall that not only did Hobbes have no idea what such a state might consist of, living as he did before archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, zoology, biology, or pretty much any ology that might contribute in any meaningful way to an understanding of how the animal world functions, let alone how pre-agricultural homonids might interact with each other and their environment, but also he was an apologist for totalitarian theocratic monarchy; his vision of the State wasn't the fucking Works Progress Administration; it was the Ukranian Famine. ANYHOO, his ghost mocks us all; here we are with a new name for an old company; Payroll Solutions is now called Sentrix, but we are the same Customer-"Sentrix" company that we've always been! America has an unlimited right to fucking kill you. The end.
Friday, September 02, 2011
R2D2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
that's not Sullivan, but rather Zack Beauchamp.
God damn is it good to have ya back.
Ergo the moral duty falls to the greater murderer to murder the lesser because it is worse to kill your neighbor somehow than some random dude across town.
The duty falls to the greater murderer to kill the lesser because of the Ricardian theory of comparative advantage. If a man must be killed, let's farm the work out to the man best at killing. It's as if there's an invisible knife guiding the affairs of men, such that strangers who have no reason to hate each other will come to mortal blows.
Thanks, monsieur. I needed that.
Tommy Hobbs? What's he doin' these days?
R2P = responsibility to pwn
Professor Coldheart!
"For the first time, international law and the great powers of international politics have recognized both the rights of citizens and a specific relationship between the government and its citizens: a relationship of protection. The nature of sovereignty itself is thus changed: legitimate governments are defined not only by their control of a territory and a population but also by how they exercise that control. If they fail in that obligation, the international community has the responsibility to protect those citizens."
The next time I see a cop hassling somebody, I'm calling the U.N.
Montag: Aww. :)
Anyhow, there's any number of paragraphs one could excerpt from the Zack Prettyfield screed for maximum LULZ, but I think this one is the perfect synecdoche:
I repeat the answer to this question a lot, but it's important: just. war. constraints. Only a straw man version of R2P-justified interventionism says "we must intervene EVERYWHERE bad things are happening!" We are constrained from intervening in some places because we thinks the moral costs related to intervening would be higher than the benefits. Intervention is justified by reference to R2P, not vice-versa. It's not at all clear what NATO could do to help in Yemen and Syria given 1) the distinct character of the conflicts there, 2) its already-overexteded forces and 3) political roadblocks. It's a truism in morality that "ought implies can" - we don't have an obligation to do things that we, in fact, can't do. Interventionism doesn't require blindly ignoring costs or tradeoffs. It requires deploying resources when, according to one's judgment, they can do the most good. Just because it's an idea that requires contextual judgments doesn't mean its inconsistent.
Guys! You can tell he's serious because he won't defend strawmen. You can tell he's serious because he considers the "distinct character" of each conflict. You can tell he's serious because he doesn't endorse wars that require excessive "costs or tradeoffs," as opposed to the bargain-basement, clean-as-a-whistle regime change NATO just sovereigntized in Libya. But MOST OF ALL, you can tell he's serious because he does that thing where he puts periods. in the middle. of his sentences. for emphasis.
Come on Coldheart, any serious, reasonable person has to acknowledge there are significant political and other roadblocks to helping Syria, not to mention a number of distinct characteristics pertaining to the ongoing conflict there having to do with culture and other considerations which work against the case for intervention, and really, if you take a look at the wider geopolitical situation, NATO is quite overextended in its humanitarianism, there are so many problems in the world, the international community must weigh its decisions judiciously.
R2P represents the next stage in the continual evolution of progressive thought. Of course classic international law is already long gone. But at least for a while the West did tolerate genuinely independent third-world kleptocracies. The R2P people are hoping to change that. Invade the world! Oppression of anyone, anywhere (except by the progressive West) is grounds for more and better intervention!
It will be interesting to see the progressive reaction the first time a non-Western power resorts to R2P to justify its own invasion of some neighbor. Doesn't China have the R2P the Tibetan people? Doesn't Russia have the R2P the Georgian people? As with most self-serving political rationalizations, I predict we'll see the progressives claim that only the Western powers are sufficiently progressive to be trusted with the R2P the world.
Ah IOZ! Ah Hugh Manatee!
I think you've misidentified the idiom of "R2P". It is a more distant relative to BRB, LOL et al. than it is to B2B, B2C, etc, which is to say late-90s faux-technical MBA jargon, e.g. "give me some VC for my R2P solutions ASP portal before Y2K, dot com".
That being said, I may be making a distinction without a difference.
Here is the U.N. text that supposedly justifies the invasion of Libya:
"The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."
(emphasis added)
(I sure hope I got that link right up there.)
Sorry, not "invasion." Kinetic bombing and whatnot. You know, humanitarian and other peaceful means.
the distinct character of the conflicts
one of the main characteristics we need to consider is this: what's in it for US?
Let's extend this R2P argument a little bit.
If NATO is indeed overextended, don't we have the responsibility to send more money, guns, and soldiers their way?
And don't we have the further responsibility to develop the weapons of the future to ensure that we can continue to exercise the initial responsibility?
What I'm getting at here guys and girls, is the need for Obama to give a speech guaranteeing Iron Man suits for everyone in America before the decade is out!
Surely anyone who has taken seen those videos of the "Justice" course at Harvard sees the logic of Iron Man suits for everyone.
...also has the responsibility to use...
It's okay.
It's merely a responsibility. Not an obligation, or anything mandatory. Just a responsibility. So its breach renders one merely irresponsible -- not culpable for ignoring an obligation.
Those imperialists... so irresponsible!
Karl Franz Ochstradt wrote,
It's merely a responsibility. Not an obligation, or anything mandatory.
It's been ages since I took an International Law course, but there's this whole hierarchy of international norms and a "United Nations Outcome Document" like this would be toward the bottom of that list.
As phrased here, the Responsibility to Protect is the shadow of an ethical norm exhorting you to do very little. How you go from that to kinetic hyperbaric duckspeak military whatchamacallit, I have no idea, but my failure to construct that bridge helps to explain why I'm underemployed.
FWIW, I think states killing their own citizens (or the citizens of their neighbors) is a fair thing to be concerned and upset about. I'm not exactly sure what, if anything, third parties are supposed to do when they witness something really awful happening, so in a way I'm happy that people are trying to come to terms with that question. The United Nations may be corrupt, co-opted, naive, arbitrary, ineffectual, and easily exploited, but - - but -- wait, I had a point here somewhere...
International Law is like a nation's legal scheme: the constituent parts say one thing; those implementing the parts interpret them as they wish. Idealist or realist, or anything in between, the interpreters hold the power to tell their audience what the dictates meant, how they justified their aims. Always been this way. Come on back, Buck v. Bell!
Josh may turn out to be right that the Libya intervention was a mistake. That depends on the specific circumstances at play in that case. But that's no reason to defend an antiquated, incoherent notion of absolute sovereignty that's more than past its expiration date.
1. Ron Paul may turn out to be right that the Libya intervention was a mistake. But that's no reason to defend an antiquated, incoherent Constitution of limited federal sovereignty that's more than past its expiration date.
2. Your sister may turn out to be right that her rape was a mistake. That depends on the specific circumstances at play in that case - who knows, she may give birth to a future community organizer who ends up helping dozens of underserved minorities.
I don't know Obama has put the killer robots on quite a few U.S. citizens i.e. his own people
NATO and the UN should only enter countries where they are certain to be able to trade food and other goods for sex with minors.
So what you're saying is, R2P is a cankerous manatee in cantankerous manatee's clothing? How does that tell us which manatees it's irresponsible not to bomb again? What, every time a subject populace is micturated upon in this global village, I have to compensate the owner? Or assassinate hir? Or destroy some kids & aspirin factories in order to save them? Sovereignty sure was a less fraught concept before all these manatees came along (but - is it just me or does the gestalt sovereign entity thing on the Leviathan cover kind of look like a manatee?).
Also the branding, oy, all I can think of is "protection racket". Doubt I'm in the target demographic here, but still.
Shorter Beauchamp: R2P means intervening when it's convenient.
So are people from different countries different species?
Yes.
Howard Dean was on msnbc giving the administration maximum props for using drones instead of "boots on the ground". And Iraq would have turned out a lot better if Bush had the same type of foreign policy vision Obama has.
Obama's smart with his murder.
Charlie Manson should have used drones instead of boots on the ground.
Point of information: do they sell Levis in Urban Outfitters? I was under the impression that Levis are now chiefly for credulous foreigners; actual Westerners wear designer labels like Rock & Republic and Sevens and that sort of thing.
I believe the unwashed still buy new clothes from time to time and they have held onto their unnatural affinity for Levi's. They have a special area in Urban Outfitters called "Blue Collar Corner" where they keep clothes from Sears with a $5 mark up so that fast food workers, bus drivers and other sub-proletariaterians can say they bought something from there. It helps them get dates.
I'm all for this doctrine. So when do we start carpet bombing Israel to save the Palestinians?
Rock n Republic? Lol. MAYBE ON THE JERZEY SHORE NICE FLAP POCKETS GUIDO MATCHES YOUR ED HARDY!
R2P don't apply to Syria, they ain't got no oil.
Q.E.D.
~
Lol. MAYBE ON THE JERZEY SHORE NICE FLAP POCKETS GUIDO MATCHES YOUR ED HARDY!
I think you meant G-Star Raw.
(Designer jeans from Italian labels are supposed to be good, though; D&G for example.)
Myles, amateur hour is over. Your headmaster is calling. Return to hall. Return to hall.
Myles, you are the cutest! D&G are #1 on the jean charts and 3 of the top 5 are from Italy. You really know your pants.
I really want to know how Matty Ice thinks P2R should implemented as sound policy
Thanks for posting! I really enjoyed the report. I've already bookmark this article.
@ITTDGY
Da 'Stans don't got much oil either - didn't spare them Our Overlords' benefactions. With Levant in the pocket and Eretz ever pliable, OO do control the most valuable strategic spot on the 'RISK' map. Down goes Assad, then.
With Quaddaffi solved, after a shot RnR, covert ops assets will turn their attention to the Syrian theater.
Capt'n Obvious
'Twas fucked times, 'twas unfucked times. 'Twas times of rug-pissin, 'twas times of rug-shampoo-siphonage. Unfuck Dickens, Thomas Hardy would be ashamedayinz, an' the moss crawlin' up Duncan Idaho's rope 2 make me cum.
Amen.
'TASTES GREAT AND LESS KILLING'
actual tagline for levi's seen on these foreign shores : 'go forth'
ORLY!
actual tagline for levi's seen on these foreign shores : 'go forth'
ORLY!
This reminds me of this lolcat graphic:
http://www.johnband.org/blog/tag/orly/
http://mattrothphoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/110303MattYglesias129.jpg
"Ergo the moral duty falls to the greater murderer to murder the lesser because it is worse to kill your neighbor somehow than some random dude across town"
This was one of the moral rationalizations used for the first Crusade,1096-99. That the warring, barbarian princes of Europe would be committing less evil if they killed Non-Roman Catholics, rather than each other, because they were just going to kill someone.
I don't know Obama has put the killer robots on quite a few U.S. citizens i.e. his own people
Post a Comment