"We should recognize that, in this new twilight world of global terrorism, conventional standards of government conduct will have to be rethought as we adapt our security agencies and our laws to the threat. Pre-emption is better than punishment. Much better."
Hmm. And do you know who said this?
"It is not enough to do one's best. What is required is rather that one do what is necessary for success."
15 comments:
Well, it could be that I'm the only one startled by the idea of rethinking "conventional standards of government conduct." At any rate, the above quotes are from the
editorial of US News & World Report's latest issue. The second is from Winston Churchill.
Unfortunately, I'm not exactly startled.
What I found more interesting, however, was the use of the word 'twilight' when referring to the entire world situation in general. Twilight generally leads to night, or at least it does in the real world outside my window.
It follows then, that we're about to become Apocalypse Central in a short while. Hadn't quite seen this particular point of view, outside of eschatology discussions.
It's like the Cold War, clearly. Except without both sides having the ability to wipe everyone off the face of the earth. Even if you start with worst-case scenarios, Iran doesn't have that capability, nor are they anywhere near acquiring it. We've had it for years now.
So while it may be all kinds of fun and games to reference Nazi Germany and the Cuban Missile Crisis when talking about terrorism, it isn't actually the same thing at all.
Yeah. It's pretty much not even close. Hence my extreme skepticism about needing to rethink conventional government standards.
I was thinking the second might be Churchill, but didn't want to make a fool of myself, and didn't think looking it up would be "fair."
As to "same or different," I would certainly agree that this age we live in cannot be likened to the threats of WWII and the Cold War.
The danger is not so easily assigned, country-wise.
And that's part of the reason things are different. Possibly worse...or not.
And maybe that author's use of "twilight" should not be taken too literally.
What worries me is the idea of re-thinking "conventional standards of government" for a war on terrorism that will admittedly be years, even decades long. I can see an exception in the case of an extreme and short-lived crisis - something like the Roman general who agreed to become dictator of his city for a few days while conducting a life-or-death war against an attacking enemy (and of course I forget the name). But for a "twilight world of global terrorism"?
I'm all for re-thinking government, especially the state of our government today. The kind of re-thinking that Zuckerman's proposing is headed in the opposite direction.
Cincinnatus is who you're thinking about, I think. He had dictatorship during emergencies in 458 BC and 439 BC, and stepped down after each crisis was over.
So, here's a question. If we can change our nation's standards because things start getting difficult, what is the point of having standards at all?
Well, you obviously remembered something from our Latin book that I didn't.
I take it your question's rhetorical, although standards are a notch less inflexible than morals (can a nation even have morals?). Of course, we could just pretend we're getting ready for the Tribulation.
Oh, well in that case...
*becomes more paranoid*
Also, I spent about 20 minutes with Google trying to figure out what Cincinnatus' name was. My memory's horrible.
Good, now I feel heaps better!
Not meaning to drag things out, but I did notice there are several meanings for "twilight."
So which meaning did you want to point out, chère maman?
While I would not pretend to know the author's mind, it is possible that
1a. The diffused light from the sky during the early evening or early morning when the sun is below the horizon... (emphasis mine)
or
2. Dim or diffused illumination.
or
4. A state of ambiguity or obscurity.
could have been the author's intent.
I'm just guessing the writer was meaning one of these--that we are indeed in an uncertain state, having been successfully attacked (as have other countries) by terrorist groups which no longer merely serve to further the political agenda of one sponsoring country.
It's just a little hard to put a finger on the enemy....
They hail from, and hate, different countries.
I'll buy the uncertain state theory. After all, I was being a bit snarky up there.
I still don't think being in an uncertain state should cause us to change our "standards of government conduct."
Just what I was going to say. Of course, an uncertain State might be a problem.
I really don't see anything new in Zuckerman's column. Everything he says is pretty much what everybody was saying immediately after 11 September, except maybe the reference to Iran, which is so vague as to be comical ("Iran must be dealt with"). If anything, I'd describe the article as retro -- that is, as a return to the rhetoric used in Washington before the relatively conventional invasion of Iraq distracted everyone.
Now, given the context, I'm guessing that rethinking the "conventional standards of government conduct" means revising the concept of national sovereignty. In our own laws and policies, at least, he wants us to respect the autonomy of other nations less. Again, this is hardly a new idea. It has fallen out of favor a little, though, because events since the Iraq invasion have demonstrated that such policies can have unintended consequences.
No, there isn't 'anything new'. I guess it just startled me to actually read it - that we should go pre-empt potential foreign dangers and maybe modify our own system to do it. Speaking of which, it's true that the context is our relations with other nations, but, to quote the follow-up phrase, "conventional standards of government conduct will have to be rethought as we adapt our security agencies and our laws to the threat."
Post a Comment