This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: ntion were not warranted; however, it is important to recognize that, for better or for worse, the credibility imperative is the rhetorical instrument of the hawk. The actors employing the imperative are not always the same, but their prescription never waivers. Many of the doves of the 1980s had become hawks by the 1990s, warning of the potential loss of credibility if strong action were not taken in Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Haiti. For example, the New York Times cited "United States diplomats" warning President Clinton that a failure to act in Bosnia in 1993 would "badly damage U.S. credibility abroad."59 Anthony Lake told the Council on Foreign Relations that among the reasons to act in Haiti was the need to defend American credibility in world affairs.60 In general, the more a policymaker or strategist saw the credibility of the United States in peril, the more willing he or she was to use force to prevent its erosion. ¶ The second observation on the use of the credibility imperative in policy debate is perhaps related to the first: the imperative oft...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 10/27/2013 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Summer '12 term at University of California, Berkeley.
- Summer '12