"Solely as a form of literary convenience ... I refer to the `United States,' `Americans,' `Washington,' `London,' `Moscow,' and the like. In fact what is meant is the leaders or rulers of these abstracted nations, the men who made decisions taken as a collective entity after they had settled their own differences. Where a specific group, faction, or agency is involved, I so indicate, but in no case should it be thought I am referring to the entire people of a nation. In the conduct of wartime grand diplomacy the people of all the major nations were the object of worried attention, manipulation, and, in many places, physical restraint, but nowhere were they consulted on the contours of the policy of any state."
--CGE
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> Michael Dawson: What was the central war objective in Vietnam? Iraq?
>
> This is a wrong question to ask, because it presupposes a certain
> concept of state. Specifically, it anthropomorphizes the state,
> treating it as if it were an individual human being. Only then the
> question about "central objective: makes sense. However, if we
> recognize that states are complex entities composed of various groups
> pursuing different agenda, the question should be asked central for
> whom?"
>
> It is quite common that single individuals do not pursue a single
> objective but multiple ones. If that is true of an individual, it is
> even more true of the state. Different power brokers might have very
> different goals in supporting the war. If I remember correctly,
> Wolfowitz was quite open about it, adding that they agreed on one
> official story for public consumption.