Chapter Four: The Radical Shift: The Relationship Framework

[Here]… we add another plank to the “if…then” logic that lies at the heart of our argument: If the only way to put responsibility back into the sovereignty equation is to hold other governments accountable for anything and everything that crosses their borders, then that means that any government that has harbored, given a passport to, or otherwise assisted those who may have violated our sovereignty must rid itself of this problem – or the United States will be compelled to consider that government to be a problem, too.  Washington has to make this very clear.  American demands?  Simple.  The metrics?  Obvious: “Eliminate al Qaeda.”  “Disarm and disable Hezbollah.”  “Turn over terrorist X.”  “Stop sending fighters to country Y.”  Essentially, “here is what we expect you to do.  And here’s by when.”

When thinking about how the United States would apply this framework – Is country X a partner state, a struggling state, an adversary, or a failed state? – it is vital to bear two things in mind.  Once the United States adopts this approach, all governments (and their populations) would be on notice that it is their choices that will determine our subsequent treatment of them.  Second, two events will have had to occur before the United States uses force, and both are triggered by others, not by us.  First, U.S. sovereignty was violated.  A sovereign government elsewhere intentionally or unintentionally lent attackers support.  Second, that sovereign government will only incur our armed wrath after it refuses to meet our demands.  In other words, this is not a policy of mindless punishment or destruction.  Its intent is not to wipe out or even threaten every unlucky, inept, or corrupt regime.  Nor is the demand-response-reaction sequence the least bit vindictive.  It does not aim to exact an eye for an eye.  Instead, it is completely iterative.  Washington demands; the government we hold responsible responds; how it responds determines how we react.

Subheadings

States with Too Much Power (Nuclear Weapons) and Too Little (Failed States)

Leave a Comment ↓

No comments yet.

Leave a comment