“A consistent principle” refers to the moral and ethical standard that demands equal application of justice and accountability across all actors. This concept is used to critique the architecture’s operations, which often fail to apply consistent principles to their actions and the actions of their allies. The document emphasizes that the operations conducted by the American foreign policy establishment have systematically violated this principle, particularly in how they treat different actors—such as Iran, Afghanistan, and Yemen—while simultaneously benefiting a small network of beneficiaries, including defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Northrop Grumman, as well as political figures and donor networks such as AIPAC.
The failure to uphold a consistent principle is evident in the way the operations have been justified and framed, often through selective amplification and omission, as documented in the selective amplification and operational signature concepts. This has led to a situation where the broader American population, including American population and Ukraine civilian deaths, bears the human, financial, and political costs of these operations, while the network of beneficiaries continues to profit and shape policy without facing equivalent accountability.
Related: capture.md, foreign-policy.md, constructed-catastrophe.md, legitimacy-through-omission.md
See Also
capture.md foreign-policy.md constructed-catastrophe.md legitimacy-through-omission.md