Why John Bolton is Unqualified to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
(1) Anyone who thinks that it is permissible to kill innocent people for oil is unqualified for any post in the U.S. government that might affect foreign policy
(2) John Bolton apparently believes that it is permissible to kill innocent people for oil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) John Bolton is unqualified for any post in the U.S. government that might affect foreign policy
This is not hyperbolic lefty paranoia about the reasons for the Iraq war. John Bolton is a foreign policy "realist" (as are many other members of the administration, e.g. Rice, e.g. Cheney). Foreign policy realists think that the ONLY thing that should guide our foreign policy is the pursuit of our national interest. (Bolton has said, among other things, that the U.S. should have unrestricted “discretion in using force to advance its national interests.”) This means that it's permissible for us to kill innocent people for oil. It also means that it's permissible to kill innocent people for money. Or for land. Or to distract Americans from domestic problems. It also means, among other hideous things, that it's permissible to invade other countries to enslave their populations. In fact, it means that it's permissible for us to do anything to anyone so long as (a) that person is a non-American and (b) doing whatever to him would be good for America in some way.
Perhaps John Bolton does not really beleve any of these things. If not, then he should stop saying things that entail that he does. It's hard to believe that most "realists" (better term: 'amoralists') really believe the obvious entailments of their view. If they don't, then they should stop saying things that entail that they do. So long as they keep saying it--and acting as if they believe it--I'll continue to conclude that they do believe it.
This fight should not be about John Bolton's personality. This fight should be about John Bolton's evil theory of foreign relations, an evil theory shared by many in the current administration. This is the theory of a von Ribbentrop, not of a U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
W may be a bad president, but at least he's an "idealist" about foreign policy. 'Idealist' in this context means: someone who believes that America has moral obligations to non-Americans. That is, we can't kill them indiscriminately. It's "realists" who brand non-realists "idealists," the term suggesting that we believe in some kind of pie-in-the sky utopian vision of the world. But what "idealists" really believe is that it's not permissible for nations to be evil.
Hitler was a "realist" about foreign policy. Churchill--in his better moments--was an "idealist."
(1) Anyone who thinks that it is permissible to kill innocent people for oil is unqualified for any post in the U.S. government that might affect foreign policy
(2) John Bolton apparently believes that it is permissible to kill innocent people for oil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) John Bolton is unqualified for any post in the U.S. government that might affect foreign policy
This is not hyperbolic lefty paranoia about the reasons for the Iraq war. John Bolton is a foreign policy "realist" (as are many other members of the administration, e.g. Rice, e.g. Cheney). Foreign policy realists think that the ONLY thing that should guide our foreign policy is the pursuit of our national interest. (Bolton has said, among other things, that the U.S. should have unrestricted “discretion in using force to advance its national interests.”) This means that it's permissible for us to kill innocent people for oil. It also means that it's permissible to kill innocent people for money. Or for land. Or to distract Americans from domestic problems. It also means, among other hideous things, that it's permissible to invade other countries to enslave their populations. In fact, it means that it's permissible for us to do anything to anyone so long as (a) that person is a non-American and (b) doing whatever to him would be good for America in some way.
Perhaps John Bolton does not really beleve any of these things. If not, then he should stop saying things that entail that he does. It's hard to believe that most "realists" (better term: 'amoralists') really believe the obvious entailments of their view. If they don't, then they should stop saying things that entail that they do. So long as they keep saying it--and acting as if they believe it--I'll continue to conclude that they do believe it.
This fight should not be about John Bolton's personality. This fight should be about John Bolton's evil theory of foreign relations, an evil theory shared by many in the current administration. This is the theory of a von Ribbentrop, not of a U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
W may be a bad president, but at least he's an "idealist" about foreign policy. 'Idealist' in this context means: someone who believes that America has moral obligations to non-Americans. That is, we can't kill them indiscriminately. It's "realists" who brand non-realists "idealists," the term suggesting that we believe in some kind of pie-in-the sky utopian vision of the world. But what "idealists" really believe is that it's not permissible for nations to be evil.
Hitler was a "realist" about foreign policy. Churchill--in his better moments--was an "idealist."
posted by Winston Smith at
5:36 AM
8 Comments:
I don't think this fight was ever about the personality. That's what the media latched on to, and what the administration wants us to believe the fight is about. As far as the left is concerned, this has been about his misuse of intelligence to further an agenda, the bullying of and retaliation against intelligence professionals who didn't support this agenda, and the fact that he's completely incapable of doing the job of a diplomat or even the job of reforming the UN.
As long as the focus is on his personality, the argument is framed in favor of the administration. That is, they can just talk about the wacky left and how they just hate - hate I tell you - GW and will do anything to see him taken down.
I hadn't thought of the argument you give above regarding realism, but it makes a lot of sense. Of course, it pretty much applies to a lot of other people in the administration.
Churchill was an idealist? Even when he was advocating the use of aireal bombardment to keep the population of Iraq in line? (I know you said "in his better moments, but since the only thing of significance Churchill was ever right about was the Nazis, couldn't it be interpreted that he opposed Nazism because he knew that, at the end of the day, it threatened the Empire's interests?)
I don't tend to focus on the realist/idealist divide in evaluating the morality of a foreign policy because, while I find realist theory as morally objectionable as you do, I think that "idealist" principles are not sufficient justification for action in this arena. Remember Madelein Albright, Clinton's presumably "idealist" Sec of State? She who, when asked about the human cost of sanctions on Iraq that were killing hundreds of thousands of children replied "it's worth the cost." The same argument of Iraq regime change advocates like W and Christopher Hitchens: if people have to die, that's the price paid for freedom. In both cases, these "idealists" were willing to pay a price in human lives and a supposedly idealistic goal that THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY. They blithley took it upon themselves to decide that Iraqi lives were less valuable than the "freedom," whatever the hell that means (I doubt you could find many Iraqis, with sewage still running in the streets and more than six hundred people torn apart by car bombs in less than a month who could define it). Albright, Bush, cheerleaders like Hitchens and the internet war wankers could say "it's worth it," because it never cost THEM anything. That, to me, is the essential immorality of foreign policy: making a moral calculation of the value of human life on behalf of people you've never meet, and whose deaths you will never know about, certainly not mourn.
"(1) Anyone who thinks that it is permissible to kill innocent people for oil is unqualified for any post in the U.S. government that might affect foreign policy
(2) John Bolton apparently believes that it is permissible to kill innocent people for oil..."
Who could possibly disagree with (1)?
I'm not sure (2) follows from it, though. I would think Bolton was referring to other countries (or the UN) "vetoing" American military action, or using the International Criminal Court against the US for their own geo-political purposes.
What I find persistently amazing about this whole dustup are the complaints that Democrats are just upset by Bolton's personality. Even if this is true, how does it make any points for the Republicans? Does anyone dispute that an appropriate personality is one of the minimum competencies needed for someone to be a diplomat?
I think I disagree with 1). It seems to me that practically any foreign policy decision results in deaths of some innocents somewhere, whether by our bombs by neighbors' bombs, by disease and starvation, by revolution or repression. How much innocent blood would I think it worthwhile to spill in order to avoid a depression-creating oil shock? Well, it turns my stomach to even consider the question, but if the answer is zero, then we probably have to shift over to anarchy.
Good--but gut-wrenching--point, Rilkefan.
What Bolton seems to believe, however, is that we are justified in killing ANY number of people to keep the oil flowing--that's what's entailed by what he says, anyway.
So we might not have to figure out (1) for our purposes here...
Think that could give you some Search Engine popularity, and traffic???
Advertising can be a big problem otherwise. A lot of companies reserve a big chunk of their budgets to cover marketing expenditures.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home