|
|
|
Of course, part of the reason it's crucial for the Administration not to define this as a civil war is that doing so really legitimates cutting and running as a policy option -- and that's not exactly the policy option they've been pressing.
Ther's something more sinister in Laitin's remarks, I think: the (unexamined) notion that "scientists" should get to decide what a civil war is, and that the "scientific" usage of the term should be controlling. I find this sinister because it opens the door to the possibility that all policy should be articulated by "scientific experts" -- and as we all know, what makes for a good scientist and what makes for a good politician are not the same kinds of thing. The problem is that "science" is a hard notion to oppose while remaining credible, which is why I personally prefer to expand the term's horizons rather than to simply argue against it…a ploy which is, of course, eminently disciplinary-political.
Woe unto all of us if we abandon policymaking to the "scientists." Including to me -- which is part of why I try very hard never to be in a position to make policy.
If I get ambitious I might blog about this myself later today or tomorrow.
ProfPTJ |
Homepage |
11.27.06 - 3:04 pm | #
|
|
very persuasive links. why do I not read of this in mainstreem news.
steve |
11.27.06 - 10:16 pm | #
|
|
The emperor is, like, nucularly buck nekkid.
C.M. Mayo |
Homepage |
11.28.06 - 10:12 pm | #
|
|
I read the Laitin remark somewhat differently than PTJ does. Laitin's not saying that scientists should get to define whether X is a civil war. He's saying that IF one accepts that X is a civil war, then the body of research on civil wars becomes relevant. I fail to see anything esp. sinister in this. I think I understand where PTJ is coming from (had to read 'Politics as a Vocation' and 'Science as a Vocation' -- well, don't ask how many yrs ago)-- but
it arguably can be just as dangerous to exclude 'scientists' from all policy-making as to abdicate it to them (as a glance at the linked Suskind article suggests).
L.C. |
11.28.06 - 10:43 pm | #
|
|
As always, the Daily Show has the best implicit analysis out there:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/20...-war-semantics/
Bill Petti |
Homepage |
11.29.06 - 7:28 am | #
|
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan.com
|