There is a big error in one of the cards in the security K file I posted.
On page 26 “AT: DA To Alt/Threats Real” the card from Rule 10 is actually 2 cards that I accidentlly smushed together with the elim hard returns macro. Half way down you can see in the small text it says “Hegemony advantage makes the perm impossible- this card will end them”. That should of been a tag to a separate card for the text that follows. In between that section and the section above it text has been omitted.
The text in between should read:
Sometimes recourse to force is inevitable. In international affairs, as in civil life, some particularly destructive personalities and processes can only be blocked with coercion. Confronted by mass killings, unilateral invasion, imminent threat to one’s own territory, widespread ethnic cleansing, and other preventable disasters, all nations should be prepared to act together in response. And the United States should play its part—no more, no less.
But let us never believe the neocons and their allies, for whom all interventions are of a piece. That was the appeal of the liberal hawks, as they canvassed for support for the war at its outset: if you liked American-sponsored peacekeeping in Bosnia, what objection could there be to a reprise of that operation in Iraq? By now, nearly everyone realizes what more thoughtful commentators noted in 2002. The aims and the scale of military efforts were vastly different in these two cases. The Bosnian operation aimed at separating antagonists, stopping massive ethnic cleansing, and forcing the Bosnian Serbs into a peace agreement. The invasion of Iraq sought extirpation of an entrenched regime, followed by top-to-bottom remaking of the country’s political institutions and practices.
Decisions to invoke military force should never be easy. But it is easy to cite a few basic [End Page 86] standards. Obviously, authentic self-defense provides compelling reason for force. Aggressive pre-emption of possible future antagonists does not. Similarly, truly multilateral efforts to quell evident humanitarian emergencies—mass killings, widespread ethnic cleansing, avoidable starvation, and epidemics—should win our support. By contrast, we should look with utmost suspicion on military projects touted with grandiose and speculative future payoffs—”wars to end all wars,” efforts to “nudge” whole regions to adopt new forms of government, or to “drain the swamp” of future terrorists. By now, we should all know better.
A corrected version of the file is here
hat tip- Thomas Hodgman for the correction