Powerful states often
do bad things. When they do, government
officials and sympathizers inevitably try to defend their conduct, even
when
those actions are clearly wrong or obviously counterproductive. This
is called being an
"apologist," although people who do this rarely apologize for much of
anything.
Some readers out there
may aspire to careers in foreign policy, and you may be called upon to
perform these duties as part of your professional obligations. Moreover,
all of us need to be able to
spot the rhetorical ploys that governments use to justify their own
misconduct. To help students
prepare for future acts of diplomatic casuistry, and to raise public
consciousness
about these tactics, I offer as a public service this handy 21-step
guide: "How
to Defend the Indefensible and Get Away With It." The
connection to recent
events is obvious, but such
practices are commonplace in many countries and widely practiced by
non-state
actors as well.
Here are my 21 handy
talking-points when you need to apply the whitewash:
1. We didn't do it! (Denials usually don't
work, but it's worth a try).
2. We know you think we did it but we aren't admitting
anything.
3. Actually, maybe we did do something but not what we are
accused of doing.
4. Ok, we did it but it wasn't that bad ("waterboarding isn't really
torture,
you know").
5. Well, maybe it was pretty bad but it was justified or necessary.
(We only torture terrorists, or suspected terrorists, or people who
might know a terrorist…")
6. What we did was really quite restrained, when you consider how
powerful
we really are. I mean, we could
have done something even worse.
7. Besides,
what we did was technically legal under some interpretations of
international
law (or at least as our lawyers interpret the law as it applies to us.)
8. Don't forget: the other side is
much worse. In fact, they're
evil. Really.
9. Plus, they started it.
10. And remember: We are the good
guys. We are not morally
equivalent to the bad guys no matter what we did. Only morally obtuse,
misguided critics could fail to see this fundamental distinction between
Them and Us.
11. The results may have been imperfect, but our
intentions were noble. (Invading Iraq may have resulted in tens of
thousands of
dead and wounded and millions of refugees, but we meant well.)
12. We have to do things like this to maintain
our credibility. You don't want to
encourage those bad guys, do you?
13. Especially because the only language the
other side understands is force.
14. In fact, it was imperative to teach them a
lesson. For the Nth time.
15. If we hadn't done this to them they would
undoubtedly have done something even worse to us. Well,
maybe not. But who could take that chance?
16. In fact, no responsible government could
have acted otherwise in the face of such provocation.
17. Plus, we had no choice. What we did may have been
awful, but
all other policy options had failed and/or nothing else would have
worked.
18. It's a tough world out there and Serious
People understand that sometimes you have to do these things. Only
ignorant idealists, terrorist
sympathizers, craven appeasers and/or treasonous liberals would question
our
actions.
19. In
fact, whatever we did will be worth it eventually, and someday the rest
of the
world will thank us.
20. We are the victims of a
double-standard. Other states do
the same things (or worse) and nobody complains about them. What
we did was therefore permissible.
21. And
if you keep criticizing us, we'll get really upset and then we
might do
something really crazy. You don't
want that, do you?
Repeat as necessary.
Read More
(28)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE