Replies: 2 Comments
Posted by:
Nathan Smith
On Monday, April 25th
Well, point taken, but.
Think about a police force. They don't have the force to stop everyone who has an inclination to commit a crime. But because they have the credible threat of force, most people who have the urge to commit a crime refrain from doing so out of fear. The police have the resources to prosecute those who commit crimes anyway.
The police can offer a credible threat of force because they operate according to rules. People know the rules governing when the police will act, and they internalize the rules.
After 1991, there seemed to be a clear set of rules: the world would punish any breach of borders. That rule had its faults, but there was a generalized credible threat of force protecting all the world's borders.
What are the rules that govern the use of US force now? Say what you will, they're not very clear. That undermines the police principle. We need to restore it, at some point, on a different basis. Whether you want to call that "international law" or not is up to you.
Posted by:
scooter
On Monday, April 25th
I'm surprised you speak in terms of "international law" - Until there is an international government, there is no "international law." Treaties are agreements; the UN is advisory, at best. I agree with you inasmuch as you see Iraq as one battleground in a larger fight, but force, and the threat of it, are the only 2 ingredients that mean anything.
