Plenty of reasonable people can disagree about foreign policy. What’s really strange is when one reasonable position is completely and forcibly excluded from the public debate.
Such was the case after 9-11. Every close observer of the events of those days knows full well that these crimes were acts of revenge for US policy in the Muslim world. The CIA and the 911 Commission said as much, the terrorists themselves proclaimed it, and Osama underscored the point by naming three issues in particular: US troops in Saudi Arabia, US sanctions against Iraq, and US funding of Israeli expansionism.
So far as I know, Ron Paul is the only prominent public figure in the six years since who has given an honest telling of this truth. FULL ARTICLE
{ 61 comments }
← Previous Comments
Paul and Roger,
With all due respect, I don’t think anyone is saying that there are not radical Muslims out there who are inclined to wreak all kinds of havoc, if given half the chance to do so.
The point is that our government (and of course this goes for all other governments) should not take actions which will only allow people like OBL to gain popular support and then go on to exploit their hatred. You conflate confronting jihadism with a show of force in Muslim countries when the two do not necessarily go together, and in fact can very much be at odds.
George Gaskell – thank you for quoting me out of context. I said (and have said more than once) that this is line is NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL. It is nothing to do with the line of thought from Carl Menger to Ludwig Von Mises (or others like F.A. Hayek either). This is the “left and right join hands” stuff of the 1960′s onwards. Karl Hess had an excuse for why he got involved in all this – “I was on drugs at the time”, but other people were NOT on drugs so this excuse is not valid for them.
By the way you have still not listed the wars in the last two centuries in which you would have been loyal to the United States of America.
Give me some examples – thus you can refute me and just show that you are good person who just happens to be against the present war in Iraq.
Scott D.
Of course one can be against all aggressive violence. One can be a pacifist – the problem with this is that (unless one is protected by a government or other such) such a person will be murdered or enslaved.
“But there are strictly defensive ways of fighting wars”.
Perhaps this is true, but if we take Murry Rothbard’s definition of these defensive tactics (not going into other nations and so on) they can be summed up in one word – defeat. Revolts against strong powers normally fail unless they get outside assistance (normally from another government or governments). And as for a nation waiting till another power is actually knocking its door before taking any action on the world stage – that is defeat.
Murry Rothbard was a very great economist, but he was not much a military thinker (neither am I – but I am prepared to take notice people down the centuries who have been).
Of course one can not jump to the conculsion that the above means that going into Iraq in 2003 was the correct move (I still hold it to have been the wrong judgment).
But this is a case-by-case matter, it is NOT something that can be decided by apriori principles such as “never put the military in another country”.
By the way, please understand that if the United States had not gone into Iraq in 2003 the United States would still be at war today.
Indeed even if the United States had not gone to war in 1991 (against Saddam), there would still have been war.
Perhaps over Saddam seeking Saudi Arabia, or with O.B.L.’s people and their supporters the Taliban Afghan government (for O.B.L. would still have attacked if American forces had NOT been in Saudi Arabia).
“But we want peace, what must we do to get peace?”.
Sadly often in this world, only the dead can have peace.
By the way, please understand that if the United States had not gone into Iraq in 2003 the United States would still be at war today.
Indeed even if the United States had not gone to war in 1991 (against Saddam), there would still have been war.
Perhaps over Saddam seeking Saudi Arabia, or with O.B.L.’s people and their supporters the Taliban Afghan government (for O.B.L. would still have attacked if American forces had NOT been in Saudi Arabia).
Paul Marks, clairvoyant without peer.
There you have it everybody. Even if the United States didn’t intervene in the Middle East, it would intervene in the Middle East.
I did not quote you out of context. I quoted you 100% accurately. You have stated several times in this thread (in the form of rhetorical questions), which everyone can plainly see, that you believe that our (or anyone’s, I suppose) opposing the US government’s decisions to insert itself into various foreign wars is to “side with the enemy” or to state that America’s “enemies are always right.”
These accusations of yours are demonstrably untrue, as shown by the fact that you can identify no one who actually said any such thing, and so by making these accusations without basis in fact, you demonstrate yourself to be a liar and a fraud.
By the way you have still not listed the wars in the last two centuries in which you would have been loyal to the United States of America.
And you, by the way, still have not listed any wars in the last 200 years (other than the War of 1812) in which the US did not voluntarily insert itself, and in which war was necessary to defend against a threat to people in the US.
You name that war, and you will have the answer to your pathetic little question.
Give me some examples – thus you can refute me and just show that you are good person who just happens to be against the present war in Iraq.
Ah, so it’s about my LOYALTY and my GOODNESS now, huh? Keep digging.
I’ve done better than give you examples, although you do not deserve even to be admitted into civil society much less debated. I have given you criteria for the justification for war, criteria that are in keeping with the principles expressed by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.
Shall we question their loyalty as well?
George Gaskell.
I say again that not supporting one’s country in time of war is NOT part of the Austrian school of economics.
If you choose to ignore the word NOT – that is up to you.
As for Murry Rothbard and his talk of “National Liberation movements against Western Imperialism”, perhaps he might have changed his mind if he seen what such folk do (they are “freedom fighters” all right – in that they fight freedom). But whether he would have changed his mind or not I am NOT going to accept Murry Rothbard’s opinions on such matters as part of Austrian economics.
My opinions on these matters are NOT part Austrian economics either. These matters are nothing to do with economics.
War of 1812.
Well you have provided an example. I did not think you would – so I apologize.
Of course the impressment of the American sailors into the Royal Navy had actually been ordered to stop before the war started, and the most famous battle of the war (the battle of New Orleans) was fought after the war was over – but these are just examples of the jokes that history plays on human beings.
Although (of course) if one is looking for an example of an “American Imperialist” Henry Clay (the leader of the “War Hawks”) fits the bill rather better than George Walker Bush does.
By the way, if you have the time, look up the life of the British soldier Harry Smith (a man who came from a town not many miles from me)- true the events in Washington D.C. are to be regretted, but there is a lot more to his life than that. Harry Smith was one of long list of eccentrics (Charles Gordon, Stamford Raffles and Frederick Lugard spring to mind) that no matter who they were officially working for tended to be their own men. The modern world tends to be too dominated by committees to allow the operation of such men – and it is the poorer for it.
Turning to other matters:
In the original post there was a mention of “financing Israeli expansionism” – I suppose this means the declining of the Jews to be exterminated in 1967 (I can not think of much military aid in 1948).
As for “expansionism” this would harldy seem to fit such actions as giving the Sinai back to Egypt (by the way, in spite of the my family name I am not a Jew – I am a Christian).
However, for the record, I am against government aid to Israel (which, as economically sensible Israeli people have long argued, could be done without) so I agree with the article there (although it would not make any great difference to how much O.B.L. and co hated the United States).
“Paul Marks is claiming to have E.S.P. again”.
Actually no – I am just claiming to know a little about this interpretation of Islam (it is not hard to find out about).
Finally Iraq:
I say again that I still think the judgement to go in 2003 was mistaken (at least no one here has accused me of “racism” for that opinion, so I must thank you for that at least).
In my childhood I knew well a man (“Uncle Bill” we called him – although not to be confused with famous “Uncle Bill” William Slim) who had served in Iraq in the period between the two World Wars. His opinion was that the majority of people there were O.K, but that a large minority of the population were very nasty indeed and there were simply too many nasty people there (even though they were the minority) for the place to ever be any good.
And, of course, there are incidents like 1958 when not only the King was killed, but the elected Prime Minister had his penis cut off and was dragged behind his car till he died – through crowds that laughed and danced out of joy at seeing the cruelty (the same crowds would have laughed and danced if this had been done to the enemies of the Prime Minister).
You can see how talking about such things got me accused of “racism” by nice American neoconservatives. These were things they did not want to know about a minority (but a large minority) of the locals. It did not fit with their view that if we got rid of Saddam and few others all would be well – because people are basically nice (no, in many parts of the world a large minority of the people are nasty).
However, to call the operation “aggression” is an error.
If it was “aggression” against the people of Iraq why do they not elect a government that asks the Westerners to LEAVE?
After all the people have had several chances to elect such a government and there are party groupings in the Parliament that have exactly that policy (they are in the minority).
Some people (if the cap fits wear it) so want America to be in the wrong that they will ignore any fact that does not fit their world view.
Some people (if the cap fits wear it) so want America to be in the wrong that they will ignore any fact that does not fit their world view.
Then I suggest you argue with them.
There is no point in arguing with them Mr Gaskill.
I apologize for thinking that you were such a person. I asked you to provide a war in which you agreed with the American position – and you did, the war of 1812 (thus refuting that point of mine).
However, if (for example) someone argues against the American position in World War II, or Korea, or Grenada (and, I assure you, I have come upon such people – indeed some writings have come from people connected with the Ludwig Von Mises Institute against the United States as regards such conflicts), nothing I say is going to change their minds.
The basic position is as follows.
“The government in Washington D.C. has grown far beyond the limits of the Constitution of United States and has many bad effects” – and I AGREE with this.
But also this leads to the, unofficial, assumption – “if America is at war D.C. must be in the wrong” (which is often not the case). There are many things worse than Uncle Sam in the world.
When Murry Rothbard made his oft attacked remark that the American government was the “worst in the world because it spends the most money” he was, to be fair, JOKING (it was a joke at the expense of those who measure the size of government just in number of Dollars – rather than as a proportion of the economy).
Murry Rothbard did not really believe that the American government was the worst in the world. But at the back of his mind there did seem to have been an assumption that as the American government was vast and harmful (which is true) everything it did must be wrong (which is not true).
I am certainly not claiming that this was an official assumption (a maxim of human action), but it does seem to be there in some people’s thinking.
It leads to the benefit of the doubt being given to almost any enemy of America in particular or the West in general. We must have provoked them in some way (or whatever). And so the various sources of information will be interpreted in this light.
This is not really quite the same as the “old right” view (of the old Chicago Tribune and so on). They were against wars to help others (because they argued, and argued strongly, that noble intentions do not mean noble results – indeed the results of action are often even worse that the results of inaction), but they did not go about assuming that Uncle Sam had evil motives, or that America did not have real enemies who would try and harm U.S. interests (whatever policy the United States followed).
There is a vast difference between saying “going into Iraq in 2003 was not in American interests” and the sort of thing one gets on moveon.org
Actually this debate is not new – and you might be surprised at my own position in it.
The “little Englander” view was always wary of overseas alliances.
For example, I do not agree with the policy of Pitt the Elder against Louis XV. But that does not mean (for example) that I do not consider that Louis XIV was a real threat.
It is even possible that the judgment to go to war in 1914 was mistaken (for all the Imperial German desires for European, indeed world, power).
These are complex and difficult matters (and I have seen strong arguments on both sides). And, of course, even if the judgment to go to war was correct (which it may, or may not, have been) how the war was faught is open to attack (my own view of the approach is very negative indeed). For it is not true that “any war will be a total mess”, there are good commanders and bad commanders – not “good” and “bad” in terms of ethics (although that is also true), but good and bad in terms of knowing what they are about, or not.
However, what is irritating (to put it mildly) is this (unspoken but very real) assumption that there is some sort or apriori principle that America is always wrong (or that Britain is always wrong).
Nor can using force against other users of force (other governments, or terrorist organizations) really be counted as the same as using it against civil society.
For example, the Grenada operation (against a gang of people who had even murdered their fellow Marxists) is not same TYPE of thing as (for example) imposing a licensing regulation.
Nor was the struggle against National Socialist Germany or Imperial Japan really the same type of thing as nationalizing a business. These governments were GOVERNMENTS (not civil society things), although they hid behind civilians (this is not to say that far fewer civilians could have been killed if things had been done differently – killing the innocent may be unavidable at times, but in World War II some of the attitudes shown to civilian deaths are deeply offensive).
Still the fact remains that (due to modern communications) the world has become a small place. And letting an enemy have their own way “overseas” has consequences “back home” (sooner or later).
“But why should ordinary people be victims of the world power struggles of governments and terrorist organizations – even if we accept that some governments are not as bad as others, we do not want anything to do with any of them”.
Good point (if you choose to make it) although other governments and terrorist organizations are going to want to have power over you – whether you want them to or not.
However, I am not going to debate whether anarchism (or “anarchocapitalism”) could resist internal or external power plays.
“That is a cop out”.
Quite so – but my comment has been quite long enough as it is, and I would rather like it if the “necessary evil” of govenment turned out to be unnecessary (however much I doubt that the “Sword of State”, stained with the blood of the innocent as well as guilty as it always has been, can ever really be done without).
Please make every effort to spell my name correctly. I imagine you would not care to see me write your name as “Marx.”
nothing I say is going to change their minds
You should strongly consider making better points.
But also this leads to the, unofficial, assumption – “if America is at war D.C. must be in the wrong” (which is often not the case). There are many things worse than Uncle Sam in the world.
1. I don’t know why you would think a strawman argument would have any traction around here, but if you do, you are sadly mistaken.
2. Several commenters in this thread have said, repeatedly, that you need to open your mind to the possibility that merely because some other government out there in the world is “wrong” that the US can’t also be “wrong.” Merely because one’s opponent is wrong (or even “worse” than you) does not mean that you are, ipso facto, right or any less wrong. It would be inconceivable that you’d be unable or unwilling to grasp this rudimentary concept were it not for the fact that you are demonstrating this fact before our very eyes.
Initiation of force is ineffective in battling ideology. One must battle ideology with ideology. The downfall of the US has been interventionism. Fighting ideology with military muscle simply fans the ideological flame. The corollary drawn between the war on the Barbary pirates and the war on terror is inconsistent. Muslims are motivated by conviction, while the Barbary pirates maintained their empire in much the same way the US does now. The war being waged on Islam will not work. Political persecution of religious groups has never worked. The problem with intervention is that there are too many unintended consequences that arise out of deficiency in the original equation. Granted, Islam is a violent religion, but intervention is the wrong course of action in preventing terrorism. The whole middle east has always been unstable. We need to just let them bicker among themselves. You cannot enforce freedom with a gun, and Islam is incompatible with reformation based traditions of freedom and individuality. Hell, the US isn’t even a good example of a free society. State coercion for collective benefit is the modern definition of American freedom. The US is headed for an economic collapse, WW3, and destruction from within already. All our problems abroad are rooted in out problems at home. There are two possibilities: The US will collapse as an economic super power due to socialist policies and Empire, at which point it will shed the dead skin of socialism and return to its decentralized roots, or it will collapse due to its socialist policies and world empire, and the state educated populous will blame it on “the free market,” at which point they will give up their heritage and join the NAU to try and restore their former “quality of life.”
The reason for the war on Iraq goes back to Fiat currency. The need for world supremacy goes back to Fiat currency. Oil is required to lubricate the American Imperial Machine. Ineffective ideologies will defeat themselves. The way of the world in violence and pillage is unsustainable. The way of the world in Centralized power is unsustainable. Centralized power inevitably leads to mass murder in the form of attrition or execution. Statism chokes itself out by cutting off its source of power: the people. It eliminates private property rights, thus incentive for labor, thus the right to harvest what one has sown. It violates the laws of the universe, and therefore cannot last. The American Empire will either fall, or be absorbed into a larger, more powerful empire, which will result in greater suffering for the individual.
Fiat currency goes back to illegitimate government coercion.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.