current | archives | profile | notes | contact | rings | host




Libertarians and the Iraq War

May 23, 2004 ~ 10:11 p.m.

I see libertarianism the way I see alcoholic drinks�while I am not so fond of brandy or vodka on their own, I like them in a mug of coffee or a cup of orange juice, respectively. Strong alcohol on its own does not entice me, although it once did.

The same applies to pure libertarianism. Appealing to me at one time, it now, like a spirit on its own, makes me wince. Pure libertarians seem to oversimplify things, saying that government that�s as small as possible is preferable to big government. Yes, it is, but we do need government. As a conservative, I recognize the existence of some agencies as necessary, saying that government should be small, but not as small as possible. For instance, although my hostility to the War on Drugs is substantial, I do believe in the FDA (Federal Drug Administration); I just think the agency has been hijacked by the ignorant mentality behind Drug War thinking that has ruled the roost of all administrations, Democrat or Republican, since Nixon.

Also, government that�s as small as possible permits a very fine line between itself and anarchy. How much government are we taking up by enforcing the law, via police departments and courts? Libertarians are uncomfortable in answering this since they are never sure where a civil right begins or ends. While pure libertarians are invaluable for their opposition to the War on Drugs and the pro-gun control crowd, they tend to read things into the Constitution that aren�t there, like a woman�s �right� to abortion or universal health care. They also tend to ally themselves with knee-jerk civil rights activism via People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union, are active in the Open Borders lobby (thus making their compliance with the War on Terror suspect), and tend towards an isolationist foreign policy. While I agree that not entangling ourselves with foreign affairs is always preferable, it is not always realistic.

Which brings me to the libertarian commentator Charley Reese. Like all libertarians, he can sound conservative or liberal, based on the subjects he discusses. He tends to favor low taxes and an unintrusive government. He decried both the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and thinks even the War on Terror is wrong because we are not only maintaining an empire, but expanding it. According to him, in a recent column entitled �Peace is Possible,� if we dismantled our bases throughout the Middle East and kicked Israel in the backside for being �nothing but a pain in America�s rear end,� then peace would ensue. Um � OK. Even most liberals now agree that pulling out of Iraq is neigh on impossible and therefore would not even suggest it, and others may yet think that just pulling out of the Middle East pronto would encourage more demands from other terrorist groups, and that offending the only stable democracy in that region would amount to geopolitical idiocy. But then, a pure libertarian like Mr. Reese has trouble interpreting his dreams from reality� realpolitik be damned.

Now someone please fix me a vodka orange. No, actually, wait �


Mr. Reese�s stance can reflect conservatism by way of the paleos or liberalism via the anti-war faithless, but I need to admit: There are seconds of time here and there when I too get frightened by the blood being shed, the time transforming Iraq will take, whether Bush�s experiment in Woodrow Wilson-esque (and no doubt Clinton-esque as well, were he not so concerned with that the UN thought) tactics. Especially given the troublesome element of the abuses of Iraqi soldiers by the Americans, we get a good idea of just how much more time and tragedy it may take before Iraq is well and truly stable.

Reese writes:

[A]s for Iraq, we should also wish the Iraqis well on their elections and simply say �goodbye.� The Iraqis are capable of electing a government and recruiting an army, provided we leave them alone. The idea that American forces have to remain in Iraq for years and years is [another] lie. If our own president were truthful, he would admit that we came to loot rather than liberate.

Now, having withdrawn militarily from these areas doesn�t mean we can�t help with civilian reconstruction. Most of the destruction in Iraq is of our doing anyway. We should help. But as long as we maintain a military presence, the Iraqi people will know that �transfer of sovereignty� is nothing more than a charade, and they will continue to resist the occupation.

What a revolution it would be if the American government said to the world: �If you need food or medicine or civilian infrastructure, we are ready to help, but we will no longer sell you arms, station military forces in your territory, interfere in your internal affairs or take sides in your quarrels with others. What kind of government you wish to adopt is your business, not ours.�

While this might be appealing, it only takes a dose of the other argument, the argument that I have been supporting all along, an example of which is provided by conservative William Rusher, to set my feet back firmly on the pro-war ground:

As for the charge that Bush falsely declared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, this would be fatal if it were not for one dismally inconvenient fact: The same assertion was made repeatedly, over the years, by the United Nations, the French, Germans and Russians; by every major Democratic politician in the United States, including Clinton, Gore, Albright and Berger; by Reps. Pelosi and Waxman; and by Sens. Daschle, Kennedy, Byrd, Levin, Graham and Kerry (Kerry in a 2002 speech: �[T]he threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.�)

Finally, it is unquestionably true that post-war Iraq offers a painful demonstration of the possibilities of guerrilla warfare in the 21st century. But the idea that there is some uniquely democratic way to cope with this would be laughable if it weren�t so sad. Only unflinching determination in battle�never the Democrats� long suit�can see us through to victory.

It�s true that things in Iraq took a seeming turn for the eternal worse and worse only a couple of weeks after Saddam Hussein was overthrown and the statues came down. But the final result may be easier if we don�t lose faith, as the public did over Vietnam. A former North Vietnamese general who fought in the Tet offensive admitted that it was an overwhelming victory for the U.S. and South Vietnamese, but what gave the Communists the morale to keep fighting was the anti-war sentiment in America and the way the Johnson ran the war with that sentiment in mind. While Americans indulged in outraged pieties, the North Vietnamese continued to fight, and fight hard.

If we as a nation are seen to take no faith in our efforts to bring about a democratic republic in Iraq, it will encourage the terrorists all the more. They feed off of domestic unrest and opposition. And domestic opposition will bring down the morale of our fighting forces. Let�s not blame every single American unit over there for the abuses of a few. They were disgraceful, but not indicative of our fighting forces as a whole. The lessons of Vietnam do apply to Iraq, but Iraq will not become another Vietnam unless we will it to.

This is what isolationist libertarians fail to comprehend. Standing up for the rights of the individual and advocating a lean (but not mean) government is all very well, but there are certain areas in which pure libertarianism is selfish beyond the pale of the individual. Suddenly pulling out of Iraq is one example.

If we follow Mr. Reese�s suggestions, then we let down the pro-American Iraqis of which, forget what you hear from the news and the pundits, are very real and want to see the former ruling Ba�athist regime with a government framework that is workable and ensures their security. Only continued American presence for the time being can help ensure that.

� M.E.M.

[Sign My Guestbook] [View My Guestbook]
Powered by E-Guestbooks Server.

Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.

Old Cinders | Fresh Fire

AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!

-