The Legitimacy Difference

Unfortunately, I'm now having trouble tracking down the specific comment, but someone asked the other day with regard to Heads in the Sand what's the difference between liberal international and just "imperial adventures I approve of." That's an important question, because I do think some liberals basically see it that way.

But the difference that I see (and this is in no way an original-to-me idea) has to do with legitimacy and institutions. One alternative to an imperial conception of America's role in the world would be to adopt a "mind our own business" posture. The liberal alternative rejects this, but also rejects the idea that the purpose of our engagement with the world should be to try to come out as top dog in an endless struggle. Instead, it seems international conflict as negative sum and international cooperation as positive sum. With that understanding, liberals seek to build and strengthen institutions that facilitate cooperation and offer less-destructive means of resolving conflicts.

Liberal internationalist willingness to use force abroad should, following the above, be constrained by ideas about legitimacy. The currently prevailing ideology in the United States holds that, in essence, we have a right to use force unilaterally against countries whose WMD or human rights policies we don't like, but no other country has this right and we have no need to apply the same standard to different countries. The liberal sees that this is incoherent and unworkable, and though agreeing that the United States rightly concerns itself with WMD and human rights issues in foreign countries, thinks these need to be dealt with through some kind of reasonable legal, procedural, and institutional frameworks -- the U.N. Security Council, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA, etc., etc., -- and that flaws in these frameworks should be dealt with through good-faith efforts to improve the frameworks rather than to cast them aside. The general idea is that American power should be used in way that's sustainable rather than threatening to the rest of the world, because it gives adequate deference to the fact that other countries have their own interests and perspectives.

Of course these ideas don't fully specify a foreign policy -- the Security Council could authorize something foolish or impractical and existing rules and institutions are often in need of change of one kind or another. But it does generate a framework within which to think about this. We want and need to be involved in the problems of the world, but wish to do so in a constructive, legitimate manner that involves working with other countries according to the established rules of the game as laid out in treaties, etc. rather than fooling ourselves into thinking that if we cast off all restraint we'll be able to remake the world with ease.

Photo by Flickr user etobicokesouth used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I couldn't give a fuck about your shitty book.

Put that on your jacket.

Posted by a guy | April 11, 2008 6:13 PM

Regardless of what liberals believe, foreign policy will be dictated by self interest alone.

This does not mean America should or will become an imperialist nation, only that no action we take will be altruistic. If we refrain from colonizing some poor and weak country we do it for diplomatic reasons not because of some abstract idea of morality. Imperialism, contrary to what liberals would like to believe, ended because we could do better without it.

If institutions forget this they will become obsolete and suffer the same fate as the league of nations.

Posted by Gordon Gekko | April 11, 2008 6:22 PM

To emphasize Matt's point, "cast[ing] off all restraint" means casting off rules that the U.S. itself created. The rules of the game are rules we created (with the support of allies). They were (and are) products and augmentors of our power. They also were (and our) products of a rule-of-legitimacy that we set down and that have continued to perpetuate that sense of legitimate U.S. hegemony. Although the ironies of abjuring those rules should be obvious, it has the added effect of cutting off our own legs.

Posted by Chris | April 11, 2008 6:25 PM

"someone asked the other day with regard to Heads in the Sand what's the difference between liberal international and just "imperial adventures I approve of."

Well, here's the guide for trust fund scumbags:

Support whatever helps your career. Ignore the fact that politics plays a part in the lives of the American people without rich daddies.

That's how Matthew was able to support the Iraq war. He knew that daddy's money would mean he wouldn't have to suffer. So he supported the war because that would help his career.

That's how Matthew is able to oppose universal healthcare this election. He knows that daddy's money will mean he won't have to suffer, so he opposes universal healthcare because that will help his career.

Posted by Petey | April 11, 2008 6:43 PM

Order. That's the difference. Order versus power. Striving for international order, or striving for American power. That's the dichotomy. More on that soon. Maybe before I even get the book from Amazon.com.

Posted by Mike | April 11, 2008 6:46 PM

The reason to have reasonable international institutions and rules is the same reason that we have law and order.

Because it allows a higher level of existence --especially for larger, more complex populations -- than is allowed by a state of anarchy. No business or economic system can long survive if property rights and order are not protected.

I mean, we could scrap the rule of law and go back to the State of Nature that small tribes experienced in the Stone Age.

In which case, there are about 30 or so people I would exterminate without hesitation. But if everyone did that, the massacres would continue until the population dropped to a level in which small family groups only saw other small family groups maybe once every six months. And since there would be nothing to fight over, peace would reign.

At least until the population grew again to the point that Kings and King's Counselors became necessary.

I don't agree with everything Hobbes said, but he had many valid points.

The Neocons are aggressive bullies not that much different from Hitler or Stalin. People who start wars when there is no reason to do so. Eventually, such people are destroyed --- but they usually drag their fellow countrymen down with them.

Ask the elderly German women who were raped during the Russian occupation of Berlin what they think of Hitler's 1000 year Reich. And Germany only suffered a few years before we revived her with our Marshall Plan due to the need to hold back the Soviets.

You would have thought that Leo Strauss's followers and the Kagans would have read Thucydides more closely. Would have looked at the Melian Dialogue -- and realized that Athens paid for that arrogance with 2000 years of servitude.

Posted by Don Williams | April 11, 2008 6:50 PM

. . . the U.N. Security Council, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA . . .

Missing from the list is NATO. Also missing is a discussion of why NATO can confer legitimacy but a 'coalition of the willing' cannot.

It's also worth noting that, while the invasion of Iraq was not blessed by the U.N., the occupation eventually received such blessing and enjoys it still. Thus, our present practical difficulties in Iraq cannot be put down to lack of such legitimacy as the U.N. can bestow.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 11, 2008 6:52 PM

Careful there Petey. Too much spittle on your keyboard, the keys will start sticking.

Seriously, dude, you need a vacation.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 11, 2008 6:53 PM

The problem with international "institutional frameworks" is that their largely populated by representatives of non-consensual governments and, consequently, block any initiatives in support of consensual government.

Show me a Security Council vote or UN Human Rights Commission vote that supports the spread or defense of liberal democracy. (And it should go without saying, that promoting liberal democracies is both in our national interest and the right thing to do.)

Posted by Bababooey | April 11, 2008 6:57 PM

lol Petey. Just get your own blog, dude. Then you can rant against trust fund scumbag Yglesias as much as you want!

Posted by Korha | April 11, 2008 7:02 PM

For fuck's sake, Petey. You don't have the political opinions that would give you credentials for that kind of vitriol. You're a relatively conventional liberal Democrat - you don't disagree with Matt on all that much, all things considered. But you sound like a Spart!

Posted by Kalkin | April 11, 2008 7:07 PM

Except for the fact that Petey is right.

I cannot swallow this distinction from somebody who was all for the war in the beginning and used most of the same justifications for Iraq that now make up his much different and morally superior liberal imperialism in his Very Important Book.

Posted by Jacob | April 11, 2008 7:07 PM

Matt, what of Pres. Clinton's intervention and bombing of Kosovo? No declaration of war from Congress, no UN authorization (Russia would veto). Was Clinton a neocon?

Remmber, if you require UN Security Council authorization for force to be legit, then no force is legit without China and Russia's blessing.

Posted by Nom | April 11, 2008 7:07 PM

Well credit Petey with one thing - not many people would have the gall to criticize Matthew for his initial support of the Iraq war, when Petey himself has explicitly adopted the "the Dems should support killing brown people as a political tactic to bring us UHC" position.

Petey has even less morals than Al and Chris Ford. Considering what monsters they are, that is saying a lot. Well anyway, at least if there is a God Petey will be burning in the fires of hell for all eternity.

Posted by LarryM | April 11, 2008 7:09 PM

Jacob - people are allowed to change their minds. The people who need to be thrown into the sea are the people who were for the war, but try to pretend they were always against it, but haven't really changed their views or their framework at all and still hate all the people who were really against the war. Fuck those people. Matt, fortunately, is not one.

Posted by Kalkin | April 11, 2008 7:12 PM

One alternative to an imperial conception of America's role in the world would be to adopt a "mind our own business" posture. The liberal alternative rejects this

Why?

Posted by Just Karl | April 11, 2008 7:16 PM

On topic, though, I think what some non-interventionist critics are missing is that Matthew's vision, deficient as it is, would probably lead to about as restrained a foreign policy as is reasonably achievable given the real parameters of American politics, largely for the reasons set forth in Nom's second paragraph above. (Of course Nom thinks that that is a bug, while us non-interventionists think that that is a feature).

Bit the real irony here is that Petey and 90% of the commenters are more interventionist than Matthew in his current incarnation. A critique of his book from a real non-interventionist is one thing, but most people here are knocking Matthew for his original Iraq war stance rather than anything that he is arguing here or in his book.

Posted by LarryM | April 11, 2008 7:17 PM

The difference between liberal internationalism and just "imperial adventures I approve of" is the difference between the rule of law and vigilantism. The basic idea was to build international institutions to resolve disputes, and to establish rules of conduct that are generally accepted--e. g., no wars except in individual or collective self-defense; no torture, etc.

That kind of regime may thwart our wishes on particular issues, on occasion--but in the long run it serves our interests, precisely because the status quo is that we're the richest, strongest country in the world.

If we reject the notion of international law, then the world will start to wonder why we should be allowed to keep what we have. If our only claim is that we're the biggest bully on the block, then sooner or later, enough of the rest of the world will bnd together and pull us down.

Posted by rea | April 11, 2008 7:19 PM

Matt, your argument seems neo-imperialist.

Imperialism, traditionally understood, is the attitude that a nation has the right to invade another country, destroy its property, and kill its people if that nation believes it will achieve a desirable goal. The goal, of course, is determined by the imperialist.

By contrast, Yglesias argues that the US should band together with other countries, and based upon rules created by us and those countries we can invade countries, destroy its property, and kill its people if we believe it will achieve a desirable goals. Now this will certainly seem legitimate to us, invasion tends to be perceived as right and just by the invaders. However, I am unclear as to why this would be perceived as legitimate by the people who we are killing.

I believe the abursidity of this reasoning can be illustrated by applying these "international" standards (eg standards powerful, rich, predominantly Western countries created) to us. The United States currently has a slew of war criminals in the top echelons of its government, including the President and the Vice-president. At any point do you think the US would allow Bush and Cheney to be arrested and imprisoned?

Posted by Joseph | April 11, 2008 7:21 PM

For the record, since I don't want to be seen to be defending our host on the substance:

Matt's (not exactly original) version of liberal internationalism is a dream. It's a dream which is kind of pleasant in its own terms, but potentially very damaging in reality, because it prevents one from correctly identifying the enemy - US capitalism. It's not simply due to some sort of fluke or super-powerful Republican political machine that the "currently prevailing ideology in the United States" is based on blatant double standards, and that a concern for international legitimacy never trumps (unenlightened) self-interest in US foreign policy decision making as actually practiced; this is a consequence of the domination of the US political system by a narrow elite which is driven by the need for capital accumulation to extend its economic competition to geopolitical and occasionally military competition. Or, absent equivalent competitors, to the attempt to establish a geopolitical and military situation where no such peer competitor could arise.

Posted by Kalkin | April 11, 2008 7:22 PM

What even makes Petey think our host here has a trust fund? He writes for the Atlantic, and he's got a book out. He seems to be doing OK for himself without "daddy's money."

Posted by too many steves | April 11, 2008 7:23 PM

But of course all those nice international frameworks are simply the consensus of the strong on how the weak are to be treated. Just because our previous neo-imperial adventures were largely supported or tolerated by the powers of the day doesn't make those activities any more altruistic or oriented toward some greater good.

The good news is that in 20-30 years most of this won't matter as we'll hardly be in a position to intervene anywhere. The bad news is that the sh*tty 'international system' we've promoted will be just as easily turned against us as it has against most of the third world over the last 5 decades.

Posted by faux facsimile | April 11, 2008 7:35 PM

Matthew, this sounds to me in IR theory terms closer to constructivism or the International Society approach theory, rather than liberal internationalism. The former definitely have a conception of why 'rules' or 'treaties' or agreements come about, and I think Mike has it right. It's about order - it's not some 'moral requirement' but the need for international order that presupposes legitimacy.

Liberal internationalists, at least American ones, are kind of clueless when it comes legitimacy other than a sort of banal, linear, progressive version that basically assumes 'democracy good, non-democracy bad', defining both in really shallow terms, IMHO.

That said, I need to go out and get a copy of your book.

Posted by Ghosts of Realists Past | April 11, 2008 7:39 PM

Matt,

I think that was my question (from your Kirchick rebuttal post), so thank you.

Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting, but there appear to be two competing principles that define your Liberal Internationalism.

The first is procedural. Once we set down or submit to rules of international conduct, we damn well ought to live up to them. Breaches should be rare and should only occur under extreme circumstances. (As in, don't drop out of the Non-proliferation treaty just because it's convenient) This has always struck me as your most powerful critique of the Bush administration, and I hope you go into more depth in your book. This is the IR equivalent of keeping your word.

The second is institutional. You would like us to give greater deference to the various Councils and Agencies that (nominally) govern international affairs. This is more troubling to me, because these agencies act as centers for vote buying and agenda pushing more than they act to address their official missions. (Recall the absurdity of the French and American ambassadors chasing each other through Angola, Cameroon and Gineau, trying to bribe their way to a favorable ruling on Iraq)

My real objection, and one that your post, while eloquent, does not address, is this: how would Liberal Internationalism direct us on the issue of the Iraq war?

On this issue, the procedural position (Continuing violation of the embargo, non-compliance with inspections, Saddam's bellicose stance) argued that war was acceptable (though not that it would be wise), while the institutions (most noticeably the UN) argued "No." At the time, the procedural argument won. I suspect that, much like you (and I, and most of the Democratic establishment, for that matter), Liberal Internationalism would have agreed.

Posted by heedless | April 11, 2008 7:40 PM

And for crying out loud, this verbal abuse of MY is uncalled for. Matt was wrong about the war at the very beginning, but was very quick to see the light, and learned something from his mistakes. There are a great many people twice Matt's age or more, some of the in positions of great power, who cannot say as much.

And Petey, what the heck is wrong with you lately? Have the primaries driven you insane? You used to be a reasonable guy, but these days you aren't contributing much to the discussion other than hurled feces.

This "trust fund" business is a particularly unfair crack. Matt's family are successful writers and academics, not plutocrats; they have money but they are a long way below the economic elite--and his daddy didn't buy him the Atlantic Monthly.

Posted by rea | April 11, 2008 7:40 PM

Um... that last sentence should read: "Liberal Internationalism would have agreed with the pro-war side.

And Petey, please take it down a notch or two. You're in serious danger of becoming the next Soullite. (I can remember a time when you almost made this libertarian take John Edwards seriously. Almost.)

Posted by heedless | April 11, 2008 7:49 PM

Nah, Petey's past soullite and into Don Williams/Richard Steven Hack/SLC levels of classiness.

Posted by too many steves | April 11, 2008 8:01 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | April 11, 2008 8:19 PM

Wow...it's the night of the living dead around here. (With a few smart, principled dissidents.)

It's depressing to contemplate how many people, on the right and the left, simply aren't capable of intelligently parsing the arguments surrounding international institutionalism and how to articulate a policy of enlightened self-interest. Maybe only a messiah will save us now--or a Caesar. We've seen this movie before--the drama of national depressiveness and dysfunction in the wake of imperial overreach. Who'll make the popcorn? Pillows, please? Matt, have another beer....

Posted by elle loco | April 11, 2008 8:28 PM

Matt--These are all excellent questions. Excellent because I know you have good answers for each! How about starting with when you decided the war was a bad idea and why.

Posted by Eric | April 11, 2008 8:31 PM

rea said:
"Matt was wrong about the war at the very beginning, but was very quick to see the light, and learned something from his mistakes."

this post proves that no, in fact, he has not learned anything.

the federal government has absolutely no right to kill anybody. for any reason.

the federal government has no right to violate another nation's sovereignty. for any reason.

finally, the american population has no right to be concerned about the behavior of any other nation or government in this world. we have more prisoners than anyone in the world, the most powerful war machine in the history of humanity, and (very significantly) enough "WMD" to destroy the world seven or eight times. perhaps we should clean up our own house before, as matt proposes, we "concern [ourselves] with WMD and human rights issues in foreign countries".

Posted by sleepy | April 11, 2008 8:40 PM

The analogy you're looking for here is the British notion of "king-in-Parliament". The U.S. is de facto king -- no other nation can act plausibly as world executive -- yet can't afford to live of his own as an arbitrary king generally must.

Getting buy-in from a broadly representative organization like the U.N. helps to secure consent to "taxation" in the form of military or economic support of multilateral intervention in places like Bosnia and Darfur or (if you prefer) Iraq and Afghanistan. Whatever the measures which the executive judges expedient, it is generally both more just and more effective to obtain collective support for their implementation.

The U.N. bashing from the right has generally amounted to sarcasm about the executive deficiencies of a somewhat corrupt legislature. That criticism is better spent on efforts to reinvent or replace the U.N. with something more reputable and effective. Unfortunately, the neocon movement has been more interested in advocating American royal absolutism.

Quite ironic for a movement pretending to spread democracy ;)

David Tomlin: The reason a coalition of the willing doesn't confer legitimacy is simple: they are perceived to be the king's cronies. Just grabbing a few dozen of your favorite henchmen, sticking them in a room in Westminster Palace and calling them a "Parliament" fools no one. If the opposition isn't invited and shown to be in the minority by a vote, then you've proven nothing about your legitimacy.

Posted by STS | April 11, 2008 9:05 PM

SDS,

I like it. One objection though: In Britain, the King needed parliament to finance his activities. In the modern world, the US pays for itself, and for much of the UN, too.

Posted by heedless | April 11, 2008 9:18 PM

STS, I don't think you've answered my question. You haven't explained why the same objection doesn't apply to NATO.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 11, 2008 9:37 PM

heedless:

thanks, but your objection suggests a certain ... um .. lack of familiarity? ... with our fiscal condition. you might want to google 'twin deficits' and do a little background reading. and how much in arrears are we on our UN dues? i forget just now ...

the emperor is in a state of denial as to his ... um ... wardrobe arrangements.

Posted by STS | April 11, 2008 9:40 PM

I think the liberal goals should be to uphold the self-evident truths and secure the inalienable rights of our own Declaration of Independence. When we advance those goals, we earn legitimacy, thereby helping us acheive "top dog" status, which empowers us to further advance the goals.

The circular logic of the theory reflects the positive-feedback nature of the practice. George W. Bush never really shared our liberal goals to begin with. When he ordered those prisoners tortured he abandoned us completely. It will take a generation of consistent liberalism just to earn back the legitimacy destroyed by that one, naked prisoner pyramid picture.

Because of George W. Bush's illiberalism, American foreign policy is harder, costlier and less fruitful than it needed to be. America is less safe and less secure.

Posted by Aatos | April 11, 2008 10:23 PM

Legitimacy counts, as we have learned the hard way in Iraq.

If a country is going to go to war, then the moral cause has to be there. And only then will we have the assistance of other nations.

McCain would not cultivate international cooperation, nor would Hillary, who is proving to be more and more another neocon.

Posted by cm | April 11, 2008 11:48 PM

I don't think Matt can be blamed for his support of the Iraq ware based on his concepts enumerated in this post.

He supported the war because as a college kid with no clue he believed the "Big Dog Democrats" when they said this war WAS part of his "liberal internationalist" position - even when it was clear to most people with a brain that it wasn't.

In other words, he was ignorant, clueless and a lapdog but not malicious. Whereas the "Big Dog Democrats" for the most part WERE malicious despite their claims of being "fooled by Bush".

Now, since Matt has never answered my two questions on Iran, clearly he has some need to explain how he will deal with the upcoming Iran war in terms of his concepts here.

For those who haven't heard those two questions, here they are for Matt AGAIN:

1) Do you think Iran has a nuclear weapons program (not a nuclear energy program, a WEAPONS program, i.e. a program to develop and deploy nuclear weapons)?

2) If Iran does IN FACT have a nuclear weapons program, do you believe it is appropriate to conduct any sort of military operation against Iran to prevent that program from being developed and deployed?

For the record, my answers to these two questions are "No" and "No".

Matt has never answered these questions, probably because he would have to say "yes" to the second question based on his stated "liberal internationalist" concept.

And that will put him in the same place he was on Iraq before the Iraq war started. And that means he's afraid of being wrong again.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 12, 2008 1:05 AM

So if we could've gotten NATO or the UN to bless the Iraq War, then it would've been hunky-dory? Christ on a crap cracker, what a vapid and vacuous ideology.

"It's true, if Giblets had to blow up the moon all over again he would have made some changes, like firing Donald Rumsfeld and putting more boots on the ground and getting more international support - because when you blow stuff up and kill people it's important that you blow stuff up and kill people in a way that maintains international respect and legitimacy for future blow-stuff-uppery and people-killing."

Posted by Christmas | April 12, 2008 1:18 AM

David Tomlin:

You haven't explained why the same objection doesn't apply to NATO.

I didn't really mean to undertake a detailed justification of any specifics in MY's post, but it might be useful to raise the question of "jurisdiction".

I would be inclined to accord NATO "jurisdiction" -- meaning the legitimate authority to play "law giver" -- to NATO within the territory of its own membership at least. Beyond that, you might argue for a sort of "custodial" authority for failed states next door to them. By that line of reasoning you could argue that the Balkan detritus left by Tito's ersatz Austro/Hungarian/Ottoman/byzantine empire needs *somebody* to look after them, so NATO or the EU gets the job. It's obviously a political judgment. But legitimacy is an intangible of soft power -- do those affected naturally incline to buy into it, or do they rush into the streets to burn effigies of the people in charge?

So NATO isn't a great choice for dealing with Iraq, Afghanistan or Darfur because it lacks membership in those regions. If none of the affected ethnic/political communities share in the decision, how would you expect them to react?

Posted by STS | April 12, 2008 1:35 AM

Here's why I'm convinced Matt Yglesias has learned precisely jack shit from the Iraq War: because he continues to defend the Gulf War. And in fact, the Gulf War looks perfectly pleasant under the test he's just spelled out: it had international legitimacy, after all! But that international legitimacy meant shit in the end, because the end result of the Gulf War was a decade-long sanctions-and-bombing regime that put America and Iraq together in a long, slow march to war.

And of course, Yglesias doesn't just defend the Gulf War. He defends Bosnia and Korea as justified. This is the same Matt Yglesias who has, correctly, noted that an American invasion of Sudan would undoubtedly be a clusterfuck, and that far more lives would be saved if the United States started channeling its resources towards fighting disease and famine in the third world. But those same principles apparently didn't apply to Kuwait or the Balkans, and apparently they won't apply to the next starry-eyed liberal interventionist who wants to bomb someone for a good cause.

I'm waiting for Yglesias to take the lessons he's claimed he's learned from Iraq and apply them to, well, anywhere other than Iraq. But fuck me if it looks like his sensibly moderate liberal interventionist worldview has managed to emerge from Iraq entirely unscathed. And I don't need to waste my time and money on some piece of shit book by Ken Pollack lite.

Posted by Christmas | April 12, 2008 1:38 AM

Christmas,

The UN did kinda/sorta legitimate the Iraq War. That doesn't alter the fact that the decision to invade was basically idiotic and immoral. The point of seeking legitimacy isn't to paper over immorality (though that's the standard misuse to which legal forms are always put once they get sufficiently subverted) the idea is to get those affected to the table so REALLY STUPID IDEAS get SHOUTED DOWN before they get enacted.

France, Germany and Russia all made serious efforts to deter the Bush administration from embarking on this "adventure" in Iraq. And the administration railroaded both the UN and the US Congress into fig leaf approvals that it then proceeded to interpret in blatantly overreaching ways.

But MORE legitimacy is clearly a better goal than LESS legitimacy. The Neocons want to blow up the UN and just run the world through a modern version of Cromwell's Major Generals -- the contemporary instruments of this military dictatorship would be the so-called Combatant Commanders.

But I agree: fafblog rules!

Posted by STS | April 12, 2008 1:56 AM

"Imperialism, traditionally understood, is the attitude that a nation has the right to invade another country, destroy its property, and kill its people if that nation believes it will achieve a desirable goal. The goal, of course, is determined by the imperialist."

That's a pretty loose interpretation of imperialism. I've read a lot of anti-imperialist and post-colonial stuff (being descended from Indian and Irish former British colonial subjects) like Said, Lenin, etc. and I don't recall ever seeing this. There is no real difference between what you've outlined and warfare. In fact, in such a definition, there is no room for just war and defensive warfare without being an imperialist. If you are attacked and decide to defend yourself, that will probably involve invasion, property destruction and death.

The UN didn't even sorta legitimize the Iraq War in part because the UN wasn't even allowed by the US to end the inspections process. We had UN investigators there. They reported that Hussein was annoying yet complying. Missiles were being destroyed. The only reason they were pulled was that they wouldn't die once the US decided to go to war. The only reason we started dropping bombs in March was that Bush didn't want to have the US military fighting in the streets of Baghdad in the Iraqi summer heat. The UN didn't sanction that. That decision was based completely in DC among the neocons. Even if Hussein had had WMD's that we discovered through the inspections process, those could have been destroyed. We could have used sticks just short of all-out war in case he did so. After all, the Bushies sold the idea that Iraq's WMD's were a threat to the US because Hussein could pass them off to al-Qaida. They had to hinge their argument on that transfer because they thought that even the bare existence of WMD's wouldn't be enough to convince Americans to back an invasion. No other country's people or state believed that would other happen, so chances are that they wouldn't have backed a crazy war even if WMD's had been found. If Hussein had been, say, the Taliban, that would probably be a different story.

Also, the sanctions regime on Iraq in the 1990's could have been designed in a way not to cause mass famine. The design was heavy-handed. Meanwhile, when the US slapped sanctions on India and Pakistan in the 1990's for testing nukes, neither country became subject to Iraq-level famine. The same is true of Iran today. In fact, the US became more popular in India after the sanctions because Clinton played the diplomatic game in India well and was rather respectful to Indians.

"Regardless of what liberals believe, foreign policy will be dictated by self interest alone."

Foreign policy isn't just some machine which acts on its own. "Self-interest" is such a broad phrase that you can argue that just about any action violates it or supports it. In addition, much of the basis of liberal thought is that "self-interest" can become enlightened, which is one of early capitalists' arguments against mercantilism. Acting unilaterally, such as in Iraq, turned out to not be done in our self-interest. Liberal internationalists like Ikenberry who believe we need to strengthen institutions make the case based partly on self-interest so that we design them that we will be happy no matter what level of power we have through the next century as China grows more powerful.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 2:52 AM

"The currently prevailing ideology in the United States holds that, in essence, we have a right to use force unilaterally against countries whose WMD or human rights policies we don't like, but no other country has this right and we have no need to apply the same standard to different countries"

No it doesn't. That's just a stupid straw-man which you made up.

Posted by a | April 12, 2008 3:48 AM

The war in Iraq was a wrong moral decision, pure and simple. That is why it had no legitimacy in the eyes of the world. And the US cannot go it alone.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for the criticism of all the pastors who stood by and said nothing about stopping the war in Iraq, or perhaps even encouraged it. There are many out there who remained silent while we engaged in this moral wrong and they should be held accountable.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 5:20 AM

I agree with Matt's formulation for "liberal internationalism". Of course, there's nothing whatsoever in our path to the invasion of Iraq that's inconsistent with this formulation.

The fact is that we went to war with Iraq in 1991 with full international institutional regalia. After twelve years of continuous international effort to achieve a reasonable resolution which featured Iraq's systematic and comprehensive violation of the ceasefire that paused but did not end the war's legal status we decided, in concert with the UN (until further moves there were blocked by Saddam collaborators), and then with the governments of most of the world's important democracies, to enforce the existing Resolutions.

Revisionist history based on partisan myopia can't change the basic, objective facts.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 12, 2008 6:28 AM

Robert Powell, where did you learn to master the art of Orwellian doublespeak so well?

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 7:03 AM

Liberal internationalist willingness to use force abroad should, following the above, be constrained by ideas about legitimacy.

I think this is actually pretty simple stuff. Self-defense or defense of an ally is legitimate. Aggression is not legitimate. Preventive wars, pre-emptive wars, and wars intended to liberate nations from their own governments are all kinds of aggression that are not legitimate.

I know, foolish interventionists think our military can force better governments on other countries. But countries have the best governments they can support. American soldiers blowing stuff up all over another country and overthrowing its army and police force doesn't help it support a better government. There are plenty of peaceful and effective ways to help other countries develop or modernize. But knee-jerk militarist Americans can't think of anything except sending tanks and bombers.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 12, 2008 8:21 AM

the U.N. Security Council, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the IAEA, etc., etc., -- .... flaws in these frameworks should be dealt with through good-faith efforts to improve the frameworks rather than to cast them aside.

The problems are not flaws, but the profound inability of certain international structures to work or conduct themselves in a coherent rational fashion.
While certain UN agencies like WHO, IAEA work, the Security Council is a singular failure in resolving any of the major world crisis since 1950. Or genocides. Either too slow moving, or blocked by one of the permenent members. The UN General Assembly, following the "one nation, one vote" rule is utterly unrepresentive of where global power, economic strength, or population reside....and perhaps would be even worse if we went with each "global citizen" having a vote. It is corrupt to the core.

Same with the shitball Jewish and Euroweenie lawyers that came up with all their noble "international law, human rights treaties, international courts". Because they lack a means of enforcing their laws, and really only protest rights violations in the West rather than protest and piss off China, the Muslims, or the cannibal African dictator next door.
When they do get a "human rights violator" or war criminal somehow, they have overpaid lawyers fuss over "due process", the Gaboon judge replacement of Moldavan judge needing to start deliberations on writs all over again - until 6-7 years have passed and Slobbo and some Hutu machete limb-hackers are still living in the equivalent of a 3-Star hotel and giving speeches to their followers.

90% of the world is now content to hold back and be critics about any intervention, many professional activists to eagerly watch for any instance of Western misbehavior of any of the 10% that do still do interventions and peace-keeping and attempt to criminalize any transgression they see by humanitarian forces and intervenors.

To excuse their own shirking with claims that they can do nothing without the "moral legitimacy" of the blocked UN or a panel of international judges that has never agreed on anything...and in the meantime, "we shirkers" will just focus on punishing "human rights abuses" by those who do intervene, while of course ignoring non-Western abuses.

The Game will end when the last of the "we advanced nations have a burden to act" players tire and join the benchsitters with the excuse that they too lack "legitimacy" to intervene...then watch through another few genocides or brutal regimes where no one lifts a finger.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 12, 2008 9:15 AM

Reality Man - The UN didn't even sorta legitimize the Iraq War in part because the UN wasn't even allowed by the US to end the inspections process.

1. Meanwhile, Reality Man sits with his thumb up his butt and whines about Darfur and Tibet, but feels morally uplifted because since the UN will not "legitimize" intervention - whining is the highest permitted expression of his moral high ground.

2. Of course, given so many in France, Russia, UN Staff, and the Arab countries were bribed by "Oil for Food", there was little chance any intervention would have ever been allowed on the OTHER reasons Iraq was in dangerous practices with...Not just the personal bribes, but oil contracts to Russian services cos, promises to Russia to "make up" for a dozen years of not buying advanced weaponry with years of 20 billion+ contracts, and to French whores, massive leases to TotalOil&ELF&Fina.
And the only reason Inspectors were back 5 years after Saddam through them out and began declaring he had WMD was that the US was ready to invade, and Saddam knew that 8-12 months was the limit the US could field a high tempo force ready to invade..without either doing so or standing down.

3. Saddam and his captured government inner circle said the goal was to end Sanctions, then go full bore on nuclear weapons and missile development, nerve gas production and deployment and massive spending on Russian weaponry. Saddam said returning to nuke weapons was to mainly oppose the Persians, but also to become the Arab leader in the fight against the Zionists.

Their goal of bribing to end Sanctions was nearly completely realized, and support to end "baby-killing" Sanctions was nearly universal in the Euro-Left. Then 9/11 happened..

Posted by Chris Ford | April 12, 2008 10:30 AM

Somewhat tangential but: if you are American, and you think America has really bad policy, and you had an opportunity to candidate for office, and you haven't candidated for office, then you haven't tried hard enough.

On National Interest: National interest is just a version of self-interest, internationally. Self-interest is not inherently bad, but it is if you go to far. You must respect life and property, otherwise you go to far.

Self-interest good; but you must respect property and life.

Empires ended not for moral reasons but because the natives in the colonies resisted. The natives resist in Iraq. This is not surprising; it would be more surprising if they didn't.

The neocons want America simply to rule as king of the world; they disdain an international rule of law because then you can't rule like a king. That they promote it as if the rest of world would be grateful of America's (kingly) management I don't know what to believe about: either they are naive, or it is sales strategy for a strategy of mass-murder.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 12, 2008 1:23 PM

Re Chris Ford's comment "Saddam and his captured government inner circle said the goal was to end Sanctions, then go full bore on nuclear weapons and missile development, nerve gas production and deployment and massive spending on Russian weaponry"
--------------
Yes. We all know that 66 year old men plot to wage war 20 years later.

Note the progression in STORIES by the war mongers: First Saddam had nukes, then he likely had nukes we just haven't found them yet, then it was vaguely defined "Weapons of Mass Destruction" , then it was WMDs that we just haven't found yet, and now it's WMDs that Saddam didn't have but would have built sometime in the future.

3 year old children lie better than this.

It's the infant's version of the Friedman unit.

Posted by Don Williams | April 12, 2008 1:45 PM

Gah, I should learn to proof-read. Again:

Somewhat tangential but: if you are American, and you think America has really bad policy, and you had an opportunity to candidate for office, and you haven't candidated for office, then you haven't tried hard enough.

On National Interest: National interest is just a version of self-interest, internationally. Self-interest is not inherently bad, but it is if you go too far. You must respect life and property, otherwise you go too far.

Self-interest good; but you must respect property and life.

Empires ended not for moral reasons but because the natives in the colonies resisted. The natives resist in Iraq. This is not surprising; it would be more surprising if they didn't.

The neocons want America simply to rule as king of the world; they disdain an international rule of law because then you can't rule like a king. That they promote it as if the rest of world would be grateful of America's (kingly) management I don't know what to believe about: either they are naive, or it is sales strategy for a strategy of mass-murder.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 12, 2008 1:49 PM

"Empires ended not for moral reasons but because the natives in the colonies resisted. The natives resist in Iraq. This is not surprising; it would be more surprising if they didn't."

And also because it was too expensive, especially post-WWII. The fact that these two things really didn't occur to the neocons ahead of time would be funny if it wasn't so deadly and pathetic.

"The neocons want America simply to rule as king of the world; they disdain an international rule of law because then you can't rule like a king. That they promote it as if the rest of world would be grateful of America's (kingly) management I don't know what to believe about: either they are naive, or it is sales strategy for a strategy of mass-murder.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 12, 2008 1:49 PM"

And then when they don't obey international rule of law and the natives resist and it turns out a tool used for breaking things can't suddenly become the glue to put that same country back together, they can't figure out what went wrong.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 2:18 PM

And then when they don't obey international rule of law and the natives resist and it turns out a tool used for breaking things can't suddenly become the glue to put that same country back together, they can't figure out what went wrong.

I don't think they see it as their job. Their job is to decide; it's the job of others to keep things together. It's like a child, very ego-centric, but demanding that Mom and Dad should serve. We have to be careful not to be taken in by their childishness and not treat them like we were indulgent parents. But children are susceptible to command. We should probably try that, and give them orders.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 12, 2008 2:39 PM

Loony-tune Ku Klux Klan member Ford says "Saddam and his captured government inner circle said the goal was to end Sanctions, then go full bore on nuclear weapons and missile development"

Bullshit. After the UNSCOM inspectors cleared Saddam of having a WMD program, a monitoring program was to be put in place which would have prevented him from ever having nukes, whatever Saddam believed.

In other words, if he kicked out the monitoring program, he'd get bombed. What wouldn't have needed to occur was a full-blown invasion that proceeded to destroy Iraq and render twenty percent of its population dead or displaced.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 12, 2008 4:39 PM

Also missing is a discussion of why NATO can confer legitimacy but a 'coalition of the willing' cannot.

David Tomlin's point is actually kind of interesting. Two responses:

1. NATO's legitimacy is stronger the closer you are to Frankfurt. In the former Yugoslavia, NATO has legitimacy because it's cleaning up security messes in Europe. When you get to Afghanistan or Darfur, things are more tenuous. Though not entirely.

2. A "coalition of the willing" does not confer much legitimacy for the same reason a mob is not a legislature. You can always find some people who will back whatever venture you decide to undertake, often for reasons completely unrelated to the venture itself (i.e. they're trying to curry favor with you). But institutions are permanent and durable and will have to cope with the aftermath of the decisions they make, and the voting choices made by the members of the institution bind them and make them responsible for the outcome. For that reason, it is more difficult and time-consuming to work through rule-bound representative institutions, but it is ultimately more powerful and sustainable. Just as it's ultimately more powerful to prosecute a criminal in a court of law than to just call on whoever's up for it to grab their shotguns and go get him.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 13, 2008 3:32 AM

"Just as it's ultimately more powerful to prosecute a criminal in a court of law than to just call on whoever's up for it to grab their shotguns and go get him.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 13, 2008 3:32 AM"

It is a bit odd how unilateralists basically have a worldview that hinges on, to use an allegory, how the lynch mob (and no, I'm not calling neocons KKK members) is a better tool that the police and the court system for securing justice. They seem to see societal de-evolution as a good thing.

Posted by Reality Man | April 13, 2008 4:49 AM

While Reality Man and brooksfoe's lynch mob analogy may have some utility in arguing against unilateralists, it doesn't have much to say to those of us who supported enforcing the Resolutions in Iraq because we believed it was necessary for the credibility of institutional multilateral action.

Given Iraq's behavior, it's hard to imagine that anyone who opposed enforcing the Resolutions in an effective way there are really serious about multilateral international organizations having a role in confronting egregious offenses by ANY nation-state against commonly agreed upon norms of international conduct.

It's possible to argue that invading and occupying Iraq wasn't the most effective way to enforce the Resolutions, but then you'd have to make a case that there really were better alternatives. This is a lot easier to do with hindsight and no objective speculation about likely alternative outcomes. The world is easy to understand when it's just comprised of cartoon actors like neocons, lefty Jews, DFH's, Repiglicans, Defeatocrats, and the like. Real life is different.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 13, 2008 5:15 AM

"It's possible to argue that invading and occupying Iraq wasn't the most effective way to enforce the Resolutions, but then you'd have to make a case that there really were better alternatives. This is a lot easier to do with hindsight and no objective speculation about likely alternative outcomes. The world is easy to understand when it's just comprised of cartoon actors like neocons, lefty Jews, DFH's, Repiglicans, Defeatocrats, and the like. Real life is different.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 13, 2008 5:15 AM"

Another dodge. With your latter part you want to act like the people with foresight weren't adults. Then you want to admit that there is no real possibility of foresight and that people who were right can't prove it because they can't go back in time and change history to see what would happen afterwards. Do to war opponents lack of an ability to alter the space-time continuum, you thus can feel free to never have to admit you were wrong about anything. Blix said Hussein was cooperating, just not as much as he would have liked. The inspections process was going on. They were only pulled out because the US unilaterally decided that the war had to happen before the summer, when fighting in the heat would be harder on our soldiers. The US cannot unilaterally decide to invade a country to back up UN resolutions when the UN has not endorsed that course of action. There is no reason why the inspections process could not continue. The problem is that the decision to go to war was made rather early in the inspections process (around January 2003), which many people suspected. No one outside our borders really believed that we were going to pay attention to the results, in part because our troop movements said otherwise. We went to war based on a crackpot conspiracy theory about a secular Stalinist handing off WMD's he didn't have to religious radicals that hated him.

Posted by Reality Man | April 13, 2008 5:32 AM

"Resolution 687, like subsequent Resolutions, requires cooperation from Iraq, but such was often withheld. Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, even today, of the disarmament demanded which it needs to carry out to...live in peace." Hans Blix, 2003.

Saddam supporters, and people who don't know or care much about military operations or the people who have to execute them, would have been perfectly happy to leave our forces sitting in tents in the Arabian desert indefinitely, vulnerable to God knew what, while the UN played "hide and seek" (Hans Blix again) in a police state the size of Texas. We already had Marines killed by terrorist action in Kuwait in February, and it's a fact that not only our troops but some Iraqi officers as well were anticipating nerve gas attacks. Fortunately the people responsible for our troops think more seriously about their welfare than folks like Reality Man.

There were people in 2003, presumably including Reality Man, who would have just folded our tents, and the UN's legitimacy along with them, and surrendered to Saddam on the pretense of some kind of bogus "improved" sanctions which seem, on the evidence, doomed to failure. A very large majority of responsible leaders decided at the time, on a bi-partisan basis, that this was a bad idea. Attempting to look back in time with the benefit of what we know now not only about the state of Iraq's wmd programs, but about how a series of mistakes and misjudgments after the fall of Baghdad have played out, and without any consideration of what even worse scenarios might have developed with Saddam's survival, is a fool's errand.

Attempting to look at history using facts rather than partisan ax-grinding is not a "dodge".

Posted by Robert Powell | April 13, 2008 5:18 PM