TheAgitator.com
Not How I Planned to Spend 6 to 7:45pm.
Saturday, January 31st, 2004I hate it when shit like this happens. Now I have to post a response.
I guess I’ll start by nothing that Stephen Green grossly mischaracterized my position on the Iraq war. I don’t expect Stephen to read everything I’ve ever written, but if you’re going to call out “doctrinaire libertarians” — whatever that means — for our collective position on foreign policy (and there is no collective position), it seems to me you should at least cite some examples of what…um…”doctronaire libertarians” have written on foreign policy.
And if you’re going to call out one of these mysterious creatures by name, you really ought to actually read something the person you’re calling out has written on the subject, too. Start here.
Libertarians carry a variety of positions on what the U.S. response to 9/11 should have been. While I’m certainly no arbiter of what is and isn’t “libertarian,” people I know and respect who subscribe to the label have in turn been for and against the war with Afghanistan, for and against the war with Iraq, and for and against potential military action in Pakistan, Syria, even Saudi Arabia. I suppose if I were to excommunicate anyone from “libertarianism,” it would be those few who believe we can and should transform and rebuild the entire Middle East in America’s image, a position that requires such faith and blind belief in the competency, restraint, efficacy, and goodwill of government, that I really can’t see how anyone could hold the position and the libertarian label at the same time. You can’t simultaneously believe government is incapable of running a welfare state in America, but can rebuild a multi-ethnic, multi-cultured region with no modern history of liberal institutions into a liberal society.
Where libertarians differ, then, is on which of the aforementioned military interventions are legitimate. That is, which of those countries posed a serious enough threat to warrant the risk and loss of American life and treasure (not to mention the innocent life lost in the country we’re attacking)?
Let’s move on to me, specifically, since Stephen named me.
If you’d like to have a debate on just how much a risk Iraq was to America’s national security, Stephen, let’s have it. But to mischaracterize my position into “Radley doesn’t believe we should go after Osama,” or “Radley doesn’t believe we should fight terrorism,” or “Radley blames America” is pretty lazy argument.
Stephen, I have never, ever said or written we shouldn’t fight terrorism. I’ve never, ever said or written that America didn’t have the right to defend itself. And, I’m not sure where in the world this came from, but I’ve never, ever said or written that America is to blame for “the Christian reconquest of Spain (!?!).”
What I have said is that we ought to fight the war on terror in a way that best utilizes our resources, that doesn’t needlessly provoke, antagonize, and further inspire people who don’t like us, and that doesn’t unnecessarily piss away the very freedoms said war is being waged to protect.
It’s odd that Stephen’s post was inspired by my position on Iraq, but falsely characterized me as someone who doesn’t think we ought to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. My position, Stephen, is that we should have used the $300 billion or so we spent to fight a man who was a negligible threat to us on capturing and killing a man who was a proven threat. I supported the war with Afghanistan because they were knowingly and blatantly harboring people who wanted to and did kill Americans. I did not support war with Iraq because Saddam had no discernible al-Qaeda ties and because I believed his lust for power would prevent him from ever coordinating an attack on the United States. It’s funny, Stephen. With the WMD threat diminishing by the day, and the al-Qaeda ties proven dubious, your side has been reduced to justifying the war on the grounds that Saddam repeatedly defied the United Nations and UN resolutions. But then, doesn’t your side rather loathe the United Nations? Doesn’t your side believe the UN to be of questionable authority and legitimacy? (I happen to agree, by the way.) In attacking Iraq, and in doing so without a UN resolution authorizing said attack, didn’t the United States willfully violate at least the will of the UN? If the U.S. is justified in acting in spite of the UN, is it really all that prudent to say we’re justified in attacking another country for doing the same?
(Just to be clear, I don’t think America needs UN permission to do much of anything, much less defend ourselves.)
You can blather all you like about the people who “rearranged the Manhattan skyline,” Stephen. Here are two inescapable facts: We just spent a shitload of money and 500+ lives to capture a man who had nothing to do with “the rearranging of the Manhattan skyline.” Meanwhile, the guy who had everything to do with it, well, he still runs free. Mightn’t that money and those lives have been better spent?
“Doctrinaire libertarians” don’t believe America shouldn’t defend itself. On the contrary, we believe America is obligated to defend itself, in the most decisive, efficient, and resolute manner possible. When our national security is at risk, this “doctrinaire libertarian” believes that the United States is morally justified and obligated to defend itself, and to defend itself quickly and forcefully, with or without the consent of any ally or international organization.
But back-burnering the man who attacked America so we can flex our muscles on an easy target, thus showing the Arab world we mean business, is not only none of those things, it’s contrary to the interests of national security. It diverts precious war-on-terror resources and focus to a fruitless side excursion. It puts U.S. troops in yet another set of other peoples’ backyards. The post war effort creates for taxpayers a 51st welfare state, only it’s a state populated with people who are rather ambivalent (to put it mildly) about our being there. And it only fuels fears in the rest of the Muslim world about our desire, to borrow from Ann Coulter, to invade, conquer and convert them all to Christianity.
It’s preventative aggression. It’s needlessly antagonistic. And it’s foolish.
Finally Stephen, you mention my snarky response to your snarky list. I don’t really buy the “they want to kill us because we have strip clubs” line of thought. Didn’t a few of the 9/11 culprits actually visit a strip bar or two the night before the attacks? And doesn’t it make more sense that militant Muslims would be more pissed off at us for having troops in the country that houses their holiest cities, than that they would hate us because, thousands of miles away, well beyond what their eyes and ears can pick up, women gather on Sunday nights and watch Sex and the City?
But that’s another debate, and beside the point.
My point was merely that Osama specifically named our presence in Saudi Arabia during and after Gulf War I as the chief reason he attacked us. He didn’t mention ATMs, mini-skirts, or Donald Trump. He mentioned Saudi Arabia. And I thought that item was conspicuously missing from your list.
That, in a nutshell, is my position.
Now, I’m going to go listen to live music, and have a drink or three.
As to the foreign policy of doctrinaire libertarians, you really should give Arthur Silber a hat tip.
Mea Culpa
Radley Balko responds to yesterday’s post — and I owe him an apology. Trying to be brief in an already…
Radley, I just posted the following on my site:
Radley, don’t forget the timing issue. We’ve been a damn sexy place off and on since at least the 1890s. We’ve only been in Saudi Arabia for the last dozen years. Now, have militant Islamists been launching attacks on American soil since the 1890s? [Checks.] Hm, no. They’ve either got a real long fuse in militant Islam, or…
Great piece BTW.
What better way to fire up militant Islamic terrorists than to take them to an American strip club the night before 9-11? I’m surprised this isn’t obvious.
By the way, you whole shtick is being the red-meat, doctrinare libertarian blog. Everybody know this, and denying it is kind of silly. The Agitator follows the libertarian line like a road map.
Lazy Blogging
When someone alse expresses my own position eloquently, (or at least something akin to my own position) it would be foolish of me to try and top it. So I’ll just say, “What Radley said.”…
Wow!
What Radley said.
Thanks for putting into words what I’ve been thinking.
And the post’s title misspells Harry Browne.
I agree with you. That vodkapundit guy, like the “anti-idiotarian rottweiler”, is just another cheerleading republican big government type who likes killing ragheads, and palestinians, and feminists, and commies, and northeasterners, etc…. But hey, who doesn’t?
The fault unfortunately, is yours. You were the one that beleived cheerleading republicans were on your side. They are not. Oh they are happy to walk the same path for a bit, because your ideals resonate with their base. But as soon as you actually start thinking about the facts and criticizing what they are doing, its off to the gallows with you - you’re not the party boss. A mere commoner like you can’t be allowed to criticize the goals of the socialist workers republican party.
On election day, you’ll be sitting there trying to figure out which socialist/fascist you want to win, and you’ll realize that it’s the democrats that are fiscal conservatives. They don’t have the gall to lie to your face and say they are not going to steal your money and then turn around and steal it in the name of some phony strategy or war. At least the democrats tell you what you are getting for your money. The hypocritical republican communists just lie and steal.
Remeber small government means big government. And acting like a communist and fascist means you are not one.
Also remember that its the lefties that put ayn rand on the radio.
“You can blather all you like about the people who “rearranged the Manhattan skyline,” Stephen. Here are two inescapable facts: We just spent a shitload of money and 500+ lives to capture a man who had nothing to do with “the rearranging of the Manhattan skyline.” Meanwhile, the guy who had everything to do with it, well, he still runs free. Mightn’t that money and those lives have been better spent?”
What is the proper way to decide how to spend our blood and treasure?
You want to spend our blood and treasure on Afghanistan and Osama. Green wants to spend more of it on Iraq and Saddam. You do realize you have no principled leg to stand on in opposing Green, right? The two of you are simply arguing about how much of our blood and treasure to spend and on what. Is there anything particulary libertarian about your side of that argument?
You say: “My point was merely that Osama specifically named our presence in Saudi Arabia during and after Gulf War I as the chief reason he attacked us. He didn’t mention ATMs, mini-skirts, or Donald Trump. He mentioned Saudi Arabia. And I thought that item was conspicuously missing from your list.”
Here’s a link to Osama’s open letter to the US: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html
Pay close attention to 2A
“We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the .”
ATM’s, miniskirts, and the Don isn’t mentioned in there… but there’s a lot more in there than just Saudi. Here’s the beginning of the conclusion of the letter:
“If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for fight with the Islamic Nation.”
ALL THESE CONDITIONS.
Dunno about you, but he can have my immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest when he pries them from my cold, dead fingers.
John: 1. Radley states early in his post that there is no doctrinare Libertarian foreign policy so your last question is irrelevant.
IMHO, there is a huge difference between the positions of Radley and that of Green. Afganistan was all about trying to eliminate Osama and Al Quaida. This was fairly well supported throughout the world.
Iraq is something very different and controversial. The long term goal of Iraq is to change the middle east leading to it being less of a breeding ground for terrorist who want to kill us and threaten the WORLD’s access to oil.
While I side with Green on this issue, I respect Radley’s opinion and acknowledge he may very well be right.
Dang, messed up the quote.
“We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling’s, and trading with interest.”
John Kennedy just likes to chime in with his anarchist crap every once in a while. You just have to learn to ignore him.
tallan,
” Radley states early in his post that there is no doctrinare Libertarian foreign policy so your last question is irrelevant.”
I think all Radley was saying there was that there is plenty of disagreement between libertarians on the war.
Sure there is a difference between the positions of Balko and Green; I’m pointing out that there is no principled libertarian difference between those positions. They both agree that the collective is entitled to spend our blood and treasure.
How is libertarianism relevant to the dispute between Balko and Green? The both want to wield state power pragmatically. Isn’t Balko agreeing he would approve any collective measure that served the common good?
Radley,
you should seriously beat the shit out of this guy the next time you see him. he calls you out as a dreamer when history has ALREADY proven things you said pre-Iraq war correct. he must have really took your sarcastic post personally…
Good idea Rob.
That would teach him a good lesson about the proper use of force.
John T. Kennedy,
What makes you say that?
What I see is an argument about effective use of resources for national defense. That’s an area that most libertarians agree is a legitimate use of force, and thus, activity of the government.
What has he written that causes you to make the leap to “any collective measure”???
Whither the Libertarians (and the libertarians)?
Stephen Green has caused quite a stir with his two posts on the schism between “doctrinaire” and “pragmatic” libertarians over the conflict in Iraq and the broader War on Terror. The schism is really nothing new, and at some lev…
Alright, I’m sticking up for Green.
He made a mistake lumping Radley in with the Harry Brownes and the John T. Kennedys of libertarianism. He copped to it and apologized, here and on his blog, hours before most of the responses here.
Let’s not pretend that there weren’t hordes of libertarians who didn’t want to invade Afghanistan, or libertarian writers who wailed that Congress should be granting letters of marque against Al Queda instead of authorizing Bush to act. And also, let’s not pretend that the whole world was cheering the US military on to Kabul.
Eric:
I basically agree with you, but it as tacky of Green to go after Radley ignorantly as he did. But judging all libertarians for what a nutty fringe said a few years back is far too harsh.
Gil,
“What I see is an argument about effective use of resources for national defense. That’s an area that most libertarians agree is a legitimate use of force, and thus, activity of the government.”
To say “most libertarians agree” does not identify a libertarian principle. Actually I think most libertarians think ousting Sadam is in and of itself a legitimate use of force; I bet Radley does. If such libertarians don’t think it’s a legitimate use of *government* then they ought to be able to identify a principle by which some legitimate uses of force are approriate to government and others not.
“What has he written that causes you to make the leap to “any collective measure”???”
Because he’s talking like a pragmatist. Why would some common goods be appropriate for government action and others not?
Eric,
“Let’s not pretend that there weren’t hordes of libertarians who didn’t want to invade Afghanistan, or libertarian writers who wailed that Congress should be granting letters of marque against Al Queda instead of authorizing Bush to act. And also, let’s not pretend that the whole world was cheering the US military on to Kabul.”
And when people disagree about how their blood and treasure should be spent, how should the matter be decided?
Ouch. God I need to use preview more on these posts - it’s like I just learned English or something.
“And when people disagree about how their blood and treasure should be spent, how should the matter be decided?”
According to the non-initiation of force principle (if you are a minarchist). But since you’re an anarchist there’s really no answer I can give you.
The government suppressed media here by withdrawing funding from our only true bipartisan public TV broadcaster just before we revealed we were going to commit our SAS troops to the invasion of IRAQ, which BTW the troops were deployed and attacking 48 hours before the deadline.
We too are in the throes of dictatorship.
love,
1 very concerned Australian.
People like to put labels on other people…refuting people to invalidate them often leaves the moron feeling validated.
Excellent post Mr. Balko.
“My point was merely that Osama specifically named our presence in Saudi Arabia during and after Gulf War I as the chief reason he attacked us.”
Yes and Hitler said Jews are bloodsuckers and Stalin said the Kulaks were stealing bread. Clearly we should respect the opinions of all three of these totalitarians.
If a rapist is raping your sister and says that he is justified because he is “dating” her, remember that you should respect his opionion and don’t initiate force, because non-inverentionism is libertarianism. To fight him is pre-emptive and makes you an imperialist warmonger (after all, is it really YOUR business?).
Radley,you are a true libertarian,you took Osama at his word, how revealing.
Radley, you said:
âwe ought to fight the war on terror in a way that best utilizes our resources, that doesn’t needlessly provoke, antagonize, and further inspire people who don’t like us, and that doesn’t unnecessarily piss away the very freedoms said war is being waged to protect.â
and
âDoctrinaire libertarians believe America is obligated to defend itself, in the most decisive, efficient, and resolute manner possible. When our national security is at risk, this “doctrinaire libertarian” believes that the United States is morally justified and obligated to defend itself, and to defend itself quickly and forcefully, with or without the consent of any ally or international organization.â
On the second I wholeheartedly agree, but then how can or why would you be concerned with âneedlessly provoking and antagonizingâ anyone? Who gives a fuck who gets antagonized? I think itâs pretty safe to assume that militant Islamists canât get any more antagonistic given the events of 9/11. This is the problem with âdoctrinaire Libertarianismâ: it gets caught up in arguing both pros and cons of the same argument. The point regarding the war in Iraq should be stated thusly: It is morally and economically justified, not to mention in the best interests of long-term national security, to effect regime change in Iraq as well as other rogue nations (like Syria, Iran, and North Korea). However, such actions, though they will have inevitable benefits for business interests in areas such as energy and the defense industry, should not be exploited primarily for the benefit of aforesaid business and political interests, especially if it compromises both our economy and the lives of our servicemembers. This is, unfortunately, what the current administration has done.
I appreciate the rant, though, as the debate continues on these issues.
Mr Kennedy,
This has nothing to do with having to decide amongst opinions on how best to “spend our blood and treasure”. I’m sure that you can find one yahoo that thinks that you can stop terrorists by building a mile high gate around the country. That’s not the point.
The point IS that we were attacked by a specific terrorist group. They posed and still pose a DIRECT threat to the security of our nation. Their leader happens to still be running around, while we do have in custody someone who just might have some tertiary connection to that group.
Just imagine what kind of damage we could have done to the actual responsible parties if we had devoted our military and intelligence resources to them instead of Iraq.
And that is the point.
“Just imagine what kind of damage we could have done to the actual responsible parties if we had devoted our military and intelligence resources to them instead of Iraq.”
Perry: I agree. Fighting a nuclear war with Pakistan would be more libertarian, instead of unwisely (and unlibertarian-like) attacking an innocent peaceful democracy like Iraq in a pathetic attempt to “scare” other nations (like a bully) no doubt so the neocons-corporations-zionists can have their Empire. Has it worked? Look at Libya, with its mass WMDs. And now Pakistan has gone Islamic. The neoncons have failed.
“According to the non-initiation of force principle (if you are a minarchist).”
In which case taxation and thus publicly funded war (not to mention minarchy) is impossible.
“But since you’re an anarchist there’s really no answer I can give you.”
Why would the answer depend on what I am?
Perry,
“This has nothing to do with having to decide amongst opinions on how best to “spend our blood and treasure”. I’m sure that you can find one yahoo that thinks that you can stop terrorists by building a mile high gate around the country. That’s not the point.”
On the contrary, this is the very heart of the matter for a prinicipled libertarian.
If Radley is willing to compel dissenters to collaborate in an invasion of Afghanistan then he has no priniciple argument to make against compelling dissenters to collaborate in any public project. He’s affirming the right of the collective to dispose of individuals as the collective sees fit.
Take your time to check out some relevant information about prescription … Thanks!!!
You can also check out some relevant information about top rated online diagnosis and prescription …