X-Message-Number: 28125
From: 
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:43:49 EDT
Subject: Stodolsky, Bush, Lincoln etc

I'm aware we have gone far past the point of diminishing returns, and the  
whole thing is arguably off topic, but the annoyance factor still kicks  in.
 
David Stodolsky had written in part:
 


>>  According to the 2002 policy document from the National Security
>>  Council, any challenge (not necessarily of a military nature) to   the
>> USA will be met by military force.
>
 
and I (Ettinger) had replied in part:


> This  is belly-laugh stuff, and anyone who can't see this needs   
>  more help
> than I can provide.

Now Stodolsky offers to help educate us benighted with this:
 


Here is  some easy reading for those who haven't been able to keep up  
with  current events:

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine) 



>The  Bush Doctrine has come to be identified with a policy that   
>permits preventive war against potential aggressors before they  are  
>capable of mounting attacks against the United States, a  view that  
>has been used in part as a rationale for the 2003 Iraq  War.
>Historical critics of preventive war (although obviously not in  the  
>context of the Bush Doctrine) include former US President  Abraham  
>Lincoln. In an 1848 letter to his law partner, William  Herndon,  
>Lincoln criticized then US President Polk's preventive  war against  
>Mexico:

>Allow the President to invade a  neighboring nation whenever he shall  
>deem it necessary to repel  an invasion and you allow him to do so  
>whenever he may choose to  say he deems it necessary for such purpose,  
>and you allow him to  make war at pleasure.... If today he should  
>choose to say he  thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the  
>British from  invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,  
>"I see  no probability of the British invading us," but he will say to   
>you, "Be silent; I see it, if you don't."
>Abraham  Lincoln
 
I submit that this is shameful and indecent behavior for a scientist, and  
insults the intelligence of the reader.
 
First, it deliberately seeks to confuse the "policy" outlined in a  mere 

speech with an actual empowered plan having the force of law. If you  want a 
rough 
historical parallel, you might look at the Monroe Doctrine (or  Adams 

doctrine), which likewise started with a speech and then  gradually evolved 
slowly 
over time into a rough, temporary guideline for  future administrations, with 
the help of foreign and domestic  supporters.
 
Anyone who doesn't have his head too far up his butt should instantly  

recognize that, in practice, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any president to exercise  the
powers that Stodolsky implies Bush has seized. To make war it is always  

necessary to enlist the help, or at least the acquiescence, of many parties  
including 
the Congress and the military brass and the  intelligence agencies, not to 

mention the constant public  polls.. Among many other factors, war costs money,
which must either  be already available to the DOD or be specially supplied by 
the Congress. The  contemplated action must be feasible logistically and  
asset-wise. There is also the crucial element of political risk, since  

reelection tends to be the gold standard of politicians' policies, and no  
politician 
wants to risk a disaster without covering himself with political  alliances. 
Both Iraq wars were preceded by extensive and intensive maneuvers to  bring 

domestic and foreign allies aboard, and without those successes would not  have
happened.
 
As for  Stodolsky's attempt to drag in Lincoln on his side, this is so 

bizarre in so  many ways that one scarcely knows what can be usefully said in 
brief. 
If the  quoted sentence of Lincoln is relevant, then maybe also, against 
Stodolsky's  saintly UN, we could cite Washington's warnings about foreign 

entanglements, and  various other presidents'  against dilution of U.S.  
sovereignty. 
 
Finally, for those who haven't noticed, if the so-called Bush  Doctrine did 

in fact exist as a practical matter, we would already have nuked a  few people.
 
Robert  Ettinger





 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28125