TheAgitator.com
Outlook: Grim
Tuesday, June 24th, 2003As Jim Henley points out, and this Matthew Yglesias post confirms, now that the takeover of Iraq is complete, only the niche cadre of anti-war libertarians are left to make the case to bring the troops back home.
The neocons, conservatives and pro-war libertarians of course want to complete the mission. The Bush administration will push to stay in Iraq for at least as long as is necessary to prove its sincerity. And both are now joined by leftists, who a) never met a social welfare program they didn’t like, and, b) feel a (somewhat justified, though incorrect) moral obligation to rebuild the country we just tore down.
Result? No serious political opposition to the occupation, which means we’re going to be in Iraq for a long, long time. And if we keep losing soldiers at the post-war rate of one per day, there’s lots more blood yet to spill.
Remember, after a promise by President Clinton to pull out troops “by Christmas,” we’re still in Kosovo five years later. We’re still in Kuwait ten years later. We’re still in Korea fifty years later. We’re still in Japan sixty years later.
Why, exactly, is it bad to have troops in foriegn countries?
How come I never hear the talking heads on the left scream for our troops to get out of Kosovo like they have for Iraq…
I don’t understand, did you really think this wasn’t a multi-year project? Afghanistan will be too, so were Germany and Japan.
The Constitution says that the purpose of the federal government is, among other things, to provide for the common defence.
It’s difficult to reconcile libertarian principles of a limited federal government with “provide for the common defence” if the latter means keeping tens of thousands of troops in countries decades after conflicts have ended.
I think that’s Radley’s point. It may be wise to keep troops in Iraq now that we’re over there, but I think Radley’s mad about (1) the federal government going there in the first place in light of “provide for the common defence,” and (2) the constant truth that once the federal government expands in any area, it is unlikely to ever shrink back (think NATO), even if the reason for the expansion has since disappeared.
At least I think that’s what Radley’s getting at, and I agree with him.
I guess it really hinges on the meaning of “provide for the common defence.” I’d say projection of US military power through stationing troops around the world acts as a deterrent against aggression. This would qualify as “provid(ing) for the common defence.” Also, I don’t view defence as simply physical. I want my life, liberty and persuit of happiness defended. That includes economic reasons, moral reasons, etc.
We already had a president who tried to bring home all American troops stationed overseas. I think we all know how well Mr. Carter is remembered for his foreign policy. After Vietnam Americans were very wary of being World Cop, just like anti-war libertarians are now. But wishin’ don’t make it so.
In the case of South Korea we have learned over and over again that the North will roll into Seoul as soon as they think the coast is clear. I think it’s safe to assume that Afghanistan would descend into chaos if we were to leave this early. Iraq is nowhere near stable yet.
I’m all about the idea of having no foreign entaglements, but we’re already entangled. Republicans like to write libertarians off as being too idealistic, and I’m afraid they are right when it comes to the extreme isolationism. We have to finish what we started, or find some other country to pick up where we leave off.
You forgot we are still in Germany.
Cal, if Radley had forgotten that we are still in Germany (and Japan and Korea and….), why do you think he’s so worried about being in Iraq for the next umpteen years?
viagra
viagra online
cialis
buy viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22