Comments (12)

• Barry Loberfeld

  From "Letter to a Conservative Friend":

  Military preemption -- the "Bush Doctrine" -- is nothing but global gun control. The Commander in Chief has turned the U.S. military into Handgun Control, Int. and intends to use it to disarm every rogue nation out there: first, Afghanistan; now, Iraq; next, Iran, North Korea, and God knows where else. And what about all the terrorist cells that don't provide us with an identifiable "Japan" to target? How will any of this prevent a monster from walking across our border and unstopping a jar of anthrax in a major city? How can we pretend that the military can disarm every rogue in the world any more than the police can disarm every rogue in the country?
  

  
  READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

  Published: May 14, 2009 8:20 AM

• Matt_R.L.

  Dr. Gordon,

  This was an excellent review on the whole. There is one point I must take issue with, however.

  You close by quoting, in praise, Dr. Bacevich's desire that America should rid itself of the scourge of nuclear weapons -- a desire which he justifies by noting that conventional weapons are fast approaching a level of destructiveness and sophistication at which they can themselves be effective deterrents.

  It seems to me that given two options -- (a) a national defense predicated upon a nuclear deterrent and very little else (a much reduced quantity of soldiers, no worldwide system of bases, no means for imperial power projection, etc.); and (b) a national defense predicated upon a conventional weapons deterrent but no nuclear weapons -- option (a) is, from the libertarian perspective, the more desirable option.

  It's the more desirable option, moreover, precisely for the reason that Bacevich gives in defense of his selection: Nuclear weapons are unusable. They are indeed unusable, and everyone knows their unusable, but this notwithstanding they are an incredibly effective deterrent. And it is because they are unusable that not only will foreign states be disinclined to attack the United States given (a), but the American government will find itself unable to use these weapons to squelch domestic unrest. Conventional weapons can be used with pinpoint accuracy, and as a result members of the military will much more readily acquiesce in using them against 'insurgent' targets, whether foreign or native. But imagine asking members of the military to sign on to the dropping of a hydrogen bomb on Philadelphia to quell a riot. To pose the hypothetical is to answer it.

  Given the continued presence of a federal state that is tasked with the 'defense' of our shores, I believe a libertarian ideal (again, given the presence of a state) would be for the populace to be armed, and for the state to have nukes and nothing else.

  Published: May 14, 2009 10:07 AM

• Franklin

  I had posed the following in another blog,
  "What would transpire if American soldiers just up-and-left all corners of the world, outside the U.S. and its legal territories? ... Ignoring the Congressional zoo, the calls for his head, the accusations that he's incompetent and that Joe Biden needs to step in, the screaming paranoia, the survivalists hunkering down....

  ...if Obama said, 'Under my watch, as Commander-in-Chief, I am ordering the joint chiefs to develop and execute a roadmap, for my approval, and which will result in the withdrawal of all American forces throughout the globe, such roadmap and withdrawal to be entirely completed by June of 2012, six months prior to the end of my first term'...

  The late William F. Buckley used to predict mass starvation if someone like Hussein had taken over Kuwait and stopped the oil from flowing. Leftist Paul Ehrlich used to predict the same if we did not abandon capitalism.
  ..."

  Sickening, the whole damn bunch of them, scurrying like Chicken Little, arms waving like the _Lost in Space_ robot bellowing, "Danger.. Danger...," all consistent in their catastrophic contrivance, with the exception being the precise cause of humanity's demise. "We are approaching the end," they prophesy, and argue over which weapon shall destroy us. If you give me your money, [check that, I _take_ your money so that] I'll ensure we don't die from global warming, or Al-Qaeda, or recession, or swine flu, or... [ pick your poison].

  I tire of the namby-pamby cries over our "interests abroad." Interests abroad, my eye.
  If the CEO of Shell Oil has interests in Middle Eastern drill refineries, then he and his Board can determine how they mitigate their (I said, "their") risk, not mine. They need to manage it with their dollars and their army, not mine. And if that means the price of oil rises, so be it.

  So tell me, which Commander-in-Chief will order the withdrawal? The withdrawal everywhere, not just from Baghdad.
  And the answer to the question is why Obama=Bush=Clinton... Continue the line.
  

  Published: May 14, 2009 11:52 AM

• JA

  End of American Empire - why is this a bad thing again? I thought empires were bad?

  Published: May 14, 2009 12:29 PM

• Michael

  To Matt RL
  Rothbard summed this up in "Ethics of Liberty"

  "It has often been maintained, and especially by conservatives, that
  the development of the horrendous modern weapons of mass murder
  (nuclear weapons, rockets, germ warfare, etc.) is only a difference of degree
  rather than kind from the simpler weapons of an earlier era. Of course,
  one answer to this is that when the degree is the number of human lives,
  the difference is a very big one. But a particularly libertarian reply is that
  while the bow and arrow, and even the rifle, can be pinpointed, if the
  will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot.
  Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could
  ON RELATIONS BETWEEN STATES
  be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use
  only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even "conventional" aerial
  bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ips0 facto engines of indiscriminate
  mass destruction. (The only exception would be the extremely rare case
  where a mass of people who were all criminals inhabited a vast geographical
  area.) We must, therefore, conclude that the use of nuclear or similar
  weapons, or the threat thereof, is a crime against humanity for which
  there can be no justification.'
  This is why the old cliche no longer holds that it is not the arms but
  the will to use them that is significant in judging matters of war and
  peace. For it is precisely the characteristic of modern weapons that they
  cannot be used selectively, cannot be used in a libertarian manner.
  Therefore, their very existence must be condemned, and nuclear disarmament
  becomes a good to be pursued for its own sake. Indeed, of all the
  aspects of liberty, such disarmament becomes the highest political good
  that can be pursued in the modem world. For just as murder is a more
  heinous crime against another man than larceny so mass murder-indeed
  murder so widespread as to threaten human civilization and human
  survival itself-is the worst crime that any man could possibly commit.
  And that crime is now all too possible. Or are libertarians going to wax
  properly indignant about price controls or the income tax, and yet shrug
  their shoulders at or even positively advocate the ultimate crime of mass
  murder?
  If nuclear warfare is totally illegitimate even for individuals defending
  themselves against criminal assault, how much more so is nuclear or
  even "conventional" warfare between States!"

  Published: May 14, 2009 2:57 PM

• Matt_R.L.

  Michael,

  I thank you for the response. A few points:

  Please note that I was talking not about my absolute ideal situation (which would indeed be a world without nuclear weapons), but rather the ideal given the continued existence of a state apparatus that insists upon being the sole provider of national defense. This postulate must be kept in mind when considering my argument.

  I think Rothbard's quote contains within it the germ of Bacevich's argument's undoing. Bacevich argues for the United States ridding itself of nuclear weapons because, paraphrasing AB's quote from DG's review, conventional weapons will soon be strong enough to themselves act as a deterrent in the same way nuclear weapons do now. I don't think I need to go through the steps to demonstrate how that runs completely contra Rothbard's quite accurate explanation of why libertarians cannot countenance weapons of mass destruction (used here in generic, rather than specific 'WMD' terms). From the libertarian perspective, Bacevich's position is flawed even if my position (a) from above is also incorrect. My question to Dr. Gordon stands.

  In defense of my argument above in the face of the Rothbard quote, and bearing in mind the postulate above, I would simply note that I personally would prefer an unspoken policy on the part of our hypothetical government to never use the nukes -- even in retaliation. This, I think, would square matters from a libertarian ethics perspective (there being nothing unethical about owning nuclear weapons, only about using them against the innocent).

  Published: May 14, 2009 4:13 PM

• greg

  As in a market economy, you have individuals acting on their own to provide their wants and desires. You can make predictions of their movements within the economy, but you can never predict every action.

  The same applies to weapons, you can never predict the actions of all the players. All you can do is try to reduce the odds that harm does not fall on you.

  The US is a prime target for people that want to do harm. Therefore in order to reduce these odds, our society has to pay for a defense and in some cases, an offense makes the best defense. This is a cost our society has "voted" for.

  Now if you don't want to pay for this level of insurance, you are free to move to a country that is a low target. That is your choice.

  Published: May 14, 2009 4:56 PM

• Matt_R.L.

  Greg,

  I think you overstate by far just how many people want to attack the United States. You paint a picture of a nation besieged, beset on all sides with those who would destroy it. In actuality, there are not so many both with the will and the means to do the United States harm.

  But that there are those who want to do us harm itself begs the question: Why do they want to do us harm? I ask you to entertain the possibility that it is the very 'offense' you deem necessary that engenders hatred and animosity, and which impels people to hurt us. Why would these people want to attack a nation that declares itself to be wholly disengaged from the political affairs of other nations and demonstrates the veracity of such statements? Why do terrorists not attack Switzerland?

  Is it so unthinkable that the present defense arrangement is *not* the best of all possible scenarios? Is it absolutely unthinkable that, with respect to national defense, less can be more? Consider my proposal above: a policy of complete nuclear deterrence and an freely-armed populace with precious little in the way of power projection. Do you think any nation would attack the United States? If so, why? Do you think people would continue to develop in meaningful numbers who hate the United States with such a white hot passion that they would undertake anything to do her harm? If so, why?

  Published: May 14, 2009 5:07 PM

• Franklin

  Ah, yes, the "love it or leave it" argument. It was tripe during Vietnam and it's tripe now.
  I won't move anywhere. This is MY country. Nor do I need to pay for that level of what-did-you-call-it?!!! Insurance?! Heh, the mafia used to call it that too.

  You ignore the option of peace. Bring home the U.S soldiers. All of them. Now. We can mitigate the provocation and the hatred by leaving everybody alone. For better or for worse. But the Commanders-in-Chief on the so-called left and right are all the same. Hypocrites and liars.

  You would also be welcome to contribute personally, fight alongside, petition others to join your cause, and assist the freedom fighters of choice, without worrying who was "voting" for it.

  As a side note to Michael and Matt's remarkably thoughtful analysis, while I am sympathetic to the charge that mass murder is more "heinous" than murder, I am not inclined to distinguish them from a moral paradigm. We are human, and the sight of thousands of corpses is revolting to the core. We cannot conceive of anything worse. But the murder of the one is as evil as the murder of the many. No more, but no less. Certainly you did not construe "heinous" as a delimiter for a moral barometer, I recognize. But I thought I'd mention nonetheless.

  Published: May 14, 2009 5:46 PM

• Gil

  I agree with JA - Britain didn't go belly up because it lost its empire. If any, it was better off as it didn't have to fund any more 'overseas interests'.

  Published: May 15, 2009 12:37 AM

• Old Hop

  Here's my question:

  A stage toward a libertarian end state would include the secession and break-up of the U.S. -- otherwise, we still have "the state" and all that goes with it.

  So, how do we deal with the nuclear weapons issue -- yea, all weapons of mass destruction -- in the event that the several states (or blocs thereof) withdraw from the union? Maybe someone can shed some light on the Soviet situation that would be helpful. (In arguing for secession, the issue of the military and its weapons systems always comes up)

  Published: May 15, 2009 6:48 AM

• Michael A. Clem

  State interactions are not a part of a "market" economy, but instead a highly politicized economy, one where the silliest reasons can start wars between nations. Some may say that "the best defense is a good offense", but that can only be justified where an attack is imminent and inevitable. If, in hindsight, the decision is wrong, an attack was not imminent and inevitable, then, just as in any criminal case, restitution and reparations must be made to make up for it. The attack on Afghanistan was dubious, but the attack on Iraq was clearly unjustified, as is our continued occupation of Iraq.
  
  Iraq also illustrates the problem with "the best defense" argument--if all nations apply it, then all nations must necessarily attack other nations before they can attack them, thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of inevitable war.
  
  Furthermore, the argument also illustrates why other countries are clearly justified in attacking the U.S.--why, they're just trying to protect themselves by pre-empting a U.S. strike on them! The war hawks are giving the foreign nations a handy excuse to attack us.
  
  The best defense for the U.S. remains unilateral free trade with other nations, and a military that is used sparingly and only for the most defensive of actions. The U.S. "interests" abroad is a weak excuse for interfering with the internal affairs of other nations. If the U.S. is truly going to be a world example of freedom and peace, then our foreign policy needs to be radically altered from the status quo.

  Published: May 15, 2009 9:36 AM