I have never claimed we have a duty to go around and do these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
I’d have to add the need for some sort of institutionalized method of protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority… possibly not a requirement for democracy to exist, but probably necessary to make democracy any more attractive than the alternatives. Granted, an impartial mechanism for the settlement of disputes might in some sense embrace this, but even an impartial court system will not necessarily protect minorities if the majorities are making the laws.
How much vision does it require to see that it is neither our responsibility nor our right to diagnose the root causes of other people’s problems or to impose our own preferred solutions? We may choose to try to alleviate symptoms if it makes us feel better to do so, or if we believe that failure to do so would compromise our interests. Attempts to fix other countries, however, are generally uncalled for and rarely effective.
It might be true that “if one really wanted to curb corruption in Afghanistan they would begin by fixing the constitution”, but unless one is an Afghan one might be better advised to back off and mind one’s own business.
...only that we have a duty to understand what it is that actually must be done in order to get off of the path to instability, and onto the path toward stability. In the end, the Host nation must choose the path, and take their own journey. If we make the decision for them, or carry them down the path it is not likely to be an effective engagement as it will lack the legitimacy of self determination and popular sovereignty.
I post these thoughts not to prescribe what we must do, only to help us understand what must be done. There is a difference. Less is more. We over engage currently, often in the wrong places and in ineffective ways. DOD is reconfiguring itself currently to go even deeper down this path, I understand why they are doing that (we need to do something, and DOD is an action organization), but I believe the nuances of how to achieve success are not well represented by organizations such as CNAS that has the SEC DEF's ear.
This will all balance out, an over correction is probably better than no correction at all. But I believe that COL Gentile plays a critical role as well, in persistently reminding that there are still states that must be deterred, and wars that will need to be fought when deterrence fails. I would add to that that we must evolve to learn how to expand deterrence in new ways beyond state structures as we move into the future. We are indeed in an age of strategic uncertainty, where we end up on the other side will depend on how well we navigate in the fog and darkness, and how well we can focus on where we are going, not on where we came from.
Powers rise and fall in these historic cycles of uncertainty, and arguably the US was the first power to rise in the current cycle, and we need two hands to count all of those that have fallen. This cycle is likely to be several generations long, so the question is not who was first to rise, but rather who will be last. I believe that the US, for all of its current challenges has the best prospects to be last man standing; but only if we remain committed to our principles as a nation that brought us here (not the current values we assess to those principles), and continue to embrace change. To resist it and seek to consolidate and hold the world static is to be bypassed or defeated by those who continue to press.
You are either with me or against me
A focus on Zimbabwe, the intricate power play by that superb player Robert Mugabe, but it was the last paragraph that caught my attention:
Quote:
Professor Goran Hyden of the University of Florida gives a very precise summation in his paper entitled “Between State and Community: Challenges to redesigning governance in Africa” by saying:
“Recent deliberations over what to do with the problematic forms of governance in Zimbabwe shows that the rule that you are either with me or against me continues to be a powerful force in deciding relations between African heads of state and the rest of the world” (2006:16).
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/cliffor...-08-25%2018:05
Dayuhan, bringing the Bill of Rights back in
In fact, Dayuhan, the argument you make is much the same as that made during the ratification debate over the US constitution. Many of those present at the Convention argued that a Bill of Rights was not needed because the structure of the govt protected rights... I would argue that the minimal conditions of the definition I proposed generally protect minority rights through the requirement for sufficient freedom of speechm press, assembly, and religion coupled with an impartial independent mechanism for disput settlement minimally protect the rights of the minoriities. Of course, I would never object to getting specific in the constitution of a state.;)
Cheers
JohnT