I wonder if David B. Rivkin Jr. And Lee A. Casey recognize the irony of the conclusion of their op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
More than arcane legal principles are at stake. Western failure to champion a narrative of international rights and wrongs, rooted in the language of law and legitimacy, would be tragic. Meeting Russia’s aggression with passivity undermines already weakened domestic support for a robust and engaged foreign policy in the U.S. and other Western countries, and it promises to make the world a more lawless and violent place.
Sadly, the failure occurred long hence. Without entering into an exhaustive catalogue of our own violations of international law they include:
- bombing Yugoslavia
- invading Iraq
- torturing prisoners
- bombing Libya
I completely understand realist protestations of national interest. However, once you’ve cut your path through the laws, it takes at least a short while before you can stand behind them to protest the actions taken by others in what they see as their own national interests.
Yes, it requires some subtlety to cry up international law while violating it. Ideally a couple of years should pass between violating it and citing it.
And the personal problem for me, a nuclear physicist, is: Why the hell should I contribute to maintaining the hegemony and wars of aggression of the USSA? Though I already speak German, I’m enrolled in studies of Chinese along with Wernher von Braun.
More evidence that natsec establishment is bubble-bound and unaware of its own dissonance.
For a moment there, Andy, I thought your gravatar might be the Great Seal of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.