There’s a danger that the question of whether we should intervene in Syria is becoming a left-right issue. Not only is this false, it’s a means of (deliberately?) ignoring the basic issue – one that is much more general than merely the conjunctural question of Syria.Practical epistemology: When do you know enough to make a decision to act, know enough what to do, e.g. without unintended consequences — and know that you actually know this (unknown unknowns)? What are the criteria you are using? Are they sufficient? How robust?
It’s false because there are many rightists who have doubted the case for military intervention, such as John Baron, Julian Lewis and, I gather, Kate Andrews on Question Time last night. I don’t think this is wholly because they are little Englanders who care only about British interests. It’s because of their stance towards a key general question in politics: how much can governments know?...
Those that spend too much time, effort and resources, never act. Those who act prematurely risk not only failure, but also blowback from unintended consequences.
Stumbling and Mumbling
Syria: the knowledge problem
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle
Speaking of unintended consequences.
Asia Times
Russia warns ‘new waves of migrants to Europe’ would follow intervention in Syria
Speaking of unintended consequences.
Asia Times
Russia warns ‘new waves of migrants to Europe’ would follow intervention in Syria
1 comment:
Peter Hitchens is good too, and Simon Jenkins. And of course all those nice conservatives at the American Conservative.
The liberals are the dark arts, but everyone on the right calls them left, but they are only social liberals, they're on the extreme right on everything else.
The true left are anti war too, as they should be. We have the Real News and Paul Jay and Max Blumenthal are doing a grand job. There's to many to name but off my head there's Chris Hedges, Jimmy Dore, and Abby Martin I would like to mention.
Post a Comment