Perhaps the ‘idiotarian’ opposition to the US is over the top, a bit like suggesting that Pol Pot was better than Richard Nixon because Nixon taxed more people. But I offer three honest reasons (well, one is cowardly) for opposing British military intervention and occupation of Iraq:
- The British armed forces are not properly equipped. I did say so beforehand. Let me be clear: if the cause is just, but the equipment is not ready, kit up first, then go to war.
N.B. This is not an argument against US intervention in Iraq. I note approvingly that in the Second World War, the US federal government starting arming before launching assaults on Axis-occupied territories.
- This one will really not be popular on Samizdata.net… Suppose that it is not possible to defeat Islamic fundamentalism by force of arms – at least as far as the UK is concerned. A final ‘victory’ worldwide that follows half a dozen nuclear terrorist outrages in the UK and a racial war in most of the UK’s towns is not worth it. As far as the UK is concerned, it might be safer to appease and let others do the fighting. I think of Switzerland not declaring war with Germany over the treament of the Jews in 1941.
- To be a libertarian must include at least some reservations about using other people as ends for one’s own purpose. I do not have the right to force one person (A) to do something to another (B) that I think is moral, but that (A) did not wish to do, even though (B) may deserve it. This means among other things that I do not have the right to levy money by compulsory taxes in Yorkshire, to pay for my pet social-engineering experiments in Basra. I should add that the argument against compulsory aid for the disabled is the same.
In effect a libertarian who says it is fine to use tax-funded resources to liberate Bagdad from tyranny and economic ruin, and argue that it is not alright to use a fraction of the money to liberate a paraplegic from economic disadvantage, could be said to be inconsistent.
Failing to recognise the points I list above could lead to the following sorts of problems:
- A British soldier killed because he lent his body armour to a colleague. This sort of thing happened in the Crimean War with coats, right boots, blankets etc. In Kuwait the British troops got the nickname ‘the Borrowers’ from the US troops. I imagine that the French troops in the Crimean saw their British colleagues in much the same way.
- Consider this scenario: by the end of the ‘war on terrorism’ in 2015, France has not had a single nuclear terrorist strike, the US has had 20, the UK has had six and Spain, Italy and Poland one apiece. Who’s the idiot?
- In 2010 President of the EU Blair announces a “libertarian” programme of the Peace Corps: all 18 year olds will serve in a peace-keeping unit to promote the values of freedom around the world. The move is popular as it cuts youth unemployment in the EU from 45% to 40% and crime.
I repeat: removing Saddam Hussein is great. So why worry about all the lies or mistaken intelligence? It matters because we may be asked to believe another set of pretexts. It would be nice if the next lot were a bit more coherent and plausible. Of course it will be harder to persuade many people who swallowed the “45 minute” threat line of Tony Blair’s. Refusing to support a war just because Tony Blair says it is right does not make someone an idiot.
Nice piece, well reasoned.
It might be inconsistency if I was an anarcho-libertarian, but I am not. I am a minarchist and think a ‘nightwatchman state’ is the only viable model for a future with liberty. I support fulsomely the idea of property rights and ‘an Englishman’s home is his castle’… yet I also think that preventing a fireman from running a hose across your private property would be a Propertarian absurdity. Likewise I regard facing collective threats, such mass murderous tyrants with a predilection for poison gases and nuclear reactors, as requiring collective actions in ways that are materially different from the several issues of getting your wheelchair over a curb. Feel free to not share your bottle of Perrier with people at the same table in a café in London… but don’t expect the same reaction if you find yourself in a lifeboat with the same people in the middle of the Atlantic. The inability to see the difference is what prompts folks such as myself and Gabriel to reach for the term ‘Idiotarian’ at times.
This argument is based on the assumption that appeasement works, that the Islamonuts will be kind enough to leave you alone, if you refrain from helping Iraqis free themselves of their murderous regime. This is the French line of thinking.
It’s related to the pacifist worldview: “If we’ll disarm nobody will bother harming us”. This implies somehow that the US is to blame for 9/11 – because they are arrogant and interventionist, and militarist.
This is the oistrich policy.
Well, as Jacob brought up the subject of an Ostrich…
It might be inconsistency if I was an anarcho-libertarian, but I am not.
I don’t think an anarcho-libertarian necessarily has to oppose the war. See Eric Raymond. Otherwise, he would have to refrain from drinking tap water, using public roads, eating USDA approved foods, taking FDA approved medicine, going to an AMA approved doctor, etc.
The choices faced now have to be evaluated on their own terms. If state military organizations exist, and there is a threat, it’s not immoral to use them in defense. If private military organizations one day exist, great. But today they don’t, and individuals have to make due with what they have at their disposal.
However, based on your Propertarian absurdity, why can’t conscription be justified with the same argument? (Or can it?)
What would have to be sacrificed to make appeasement work?
Would you be happy to accept the integration of state and religion, the implementation of shia law and all the other joyous elements of hardline Islamic societies in order to avoid terrorist atrocities in the UK?
I would suggest that you cannot protect a society by appeasing those who wish to destroy it’s fundamental principles.
In global terms the conflict will happen, it is morally repugnant to me that we should seek to benefit from it, but not participate.
Where does looney libertarianism shade off into anarchism proper? Somewhere in this posting, I’m afraid.
As a belligerant Yank, allow me to assure you Antoine that should my country suffer a score of nuclear attacks in the coming years (I’m buy one or two are possible–no more than that) and our fabulous French amis have still not rallied to our side, we will gladly lob a few in their direction.
Coercive? You betcha. But effective too.
They pop even one nuke in the US, and the only place Arabic will be spoken is in Hell. Right now, we try to discriminate – we’re trying to build something better. A nuke would make the threat immanent; the cost of discrimination becomes too high.
Immanent–very good pun, Ray.
And Antoine, I’m recommending Andrew Sullivan inaugurate a new blogospheric “prize” just so I may nominate this posting as the first recipient of the “White Feather Award.”
As far as the UK is concerned, it might be safer to appease and let others do the fighting.
This is fine, as long you understand that you will face the future without American friendship. That is a risky policy in my view. The world will always be a dangerous place, and America has proven herself to be an indispensable ally.
Excellent piece, Antoine. I especially approve of the “using other people as means to ends” bit. This relates to collateral damage as well. Many people objected to the War, pointing out that it would violate the rights to life of many innocent people. The response from pro-war people was that it would result in a net decrease in loss of life, since Saddam would not be around to kill people, and it would result in a net increase in libery, since Saddam would not be around to tyrannise.
Both these arguments use what Nozick called a “utilitarianism of rights” arguments, that sees rights as ends to be maximised, and people as tools to be used to achieve them. It is not just to kill one innocent person in order to save two, since people are not means to ends, but should be treated as ends in themselves.
If you Brits are really serious about the Islamofascists you’ll crack down on the ones in your midst (in London, Liverpool, etc.) and you will crack down on their money which just happens to course through The City.
Otherwise this is all school-yard hot air.
There are good libertarian arguments for not taking part in the war. Sometimes, though, ideology has to take a back seat to practical matters.
For many years, the US and to a lesser extent the UK have had considerable difficulty with the French approach to the world. France is quite happy to let others do the suffering, but still demand its share of the spoils. The utter contempt this patently engenders in London and Washington was quite startling to see in the case of Iraq.
Appeasement will not work. Going to war was justifiable for a variety of reasons, to my mind, but WMD was a pretext. The ideas of power balances, strategic interests and long term socio-economic trends are really far too complex to explain to the general public in a couple of neat soundbites, but “nasty man has bad things, we go take away” is a lot easier.
As for WW2, sure Switzerland didn’t suffer. Imagine if Britain had continued a policy of appeasement, thinking maybe as Antoine suggests today:
how long do you think we would have lasted before invasion? Switzerland was hardly an economic, military or strategic threat to Germany – Britain was by virtue of being (relatively) wealthy and powerful. We would have been an enemy, sooner or later, and appeasement would just put off the inevitable conflict and make a final surrender all the more humiliating. And I can’t imagine the US rushing to our aid then, either.
Similarly now, French appeasement isn’t going to work. Once you appease, you need to keep doing it and these zealots are not open to reason. Look at how huffy they got over the infamous headscarf affair.
Unless you are prepared to fight and if need be die in defence of what you believe in, you’ll just become someone else’s poodle. A French poodle, how apt 🙂
Bugger ideological purity, this is fast becoming a matter of sheer survival. And sometimes, to preserve a greater liberty, you need to break some heads. Pragmatic and unpleasant, but that’s life.
Both these arguments use what Nozick called a “utilitarianism of rights” arguments, that sees rights as ends to be maximised, and people as tools to be used to achieve them. It is not just to kill one innocent person in order to save two, since people are not means to ends, but should be treated as ends in themselves.
But what’s the alternative?
As I posted in another thread below – If you walked by a warehouse in which Dr. Mangele was conducting his ‘experiments’ on thousands a day, would you rally your friends to try to save as many people as you could, or would you keep on walking because you didn’t want to hurt innocent bystanders, i.e, the very people being killed?
Do you say, “Aw shucks, people are ends themselves, not means. I can’t try to save 1,000,000 if there’s a chance that 100 die”? Is inaction the only moral choice?
Yes, states have used ‘collateral damage’ as an excuse for doing the opposite – killing 10 bad guys along with many, many more innocents, but using it as an absolute moral crutch prevents the saving of many, many innocents with the cost of 10 innocents, even if those innocents might have died anyway.
I don’t think you can completely shut out a utilitarian weighing of the results of actions.
“School-yard hot air” — that’s it to a tee.
Well said, Perry … A perfect reading of the position of the liberitarian. I’ll gladly allow the firefighters to run a hose across my lawn, because it’s in my interest to do so and because I care about the wellbeing of my neighbours, but this permission should not be legislated.
Antoine, within the framework you set out, your argument makes sense. But the framework is ridiculous. This American knows that a scenario where “France has not had a single nuclear terrorist strike, the US has had 20” will never play out, because we will not allow it to play out. If we are attacked by nuclear weapons, the gloves come off. Our friends will be called on to prove their friendship; else they will be called enemies.
Do not assume too much about us, Antoine. Do not assume America can be attacked, and that Britain can do nothing. When Bush said “you are either with us or against us,” he spoke for the majority of Americans. In the picture you paint, you are indeed against us. By appeasing a our deadly enemy, you become our enemy. You need to factor that into your rosy picture of appeasement. You also need to revisit how America handles her enemies. I believe Japan may offer a suitable example.
The real question, given the scenario you paint, is: whose wrath do you prefer?
I would have been waaay more enthusiastic about the Iraq war had it been accompanied by the following features:
1. Minimal Procedural Regularity: “We the United States Congress hereby declare War against the nation of Iraq . . ”
2. Minimal Honesty: “Mr. Hussein isn’t a threat to anyone but his own citizens. But we just can’t sit back and watch as he feeds people into shredders. We have to do something.”
3. Minimal Competence: “Since we’ve been preparing for this eventuality for several years, we’d like to introduce the two brand-new Security Divisions we’ve created for this purpose. Both are full-strength and consist of military police fluent in Arabic and well versed in both U.S. legal procedures and local customs.”
4. Minimal Accountability: “In sharp contrast to previous operations, where excessive secrecy helped incompetents and criminals cover their ass, we will encourage public oversight of our military activities whenever possible.
Oh, and here are the procedures and institutions we will deploy which will allow the liberated Iraqis to have some recourse in case individuals in the aforementioned Security Divisions behave badly.”
5. Minimal Responsiblity: “The sanctions were a terrible idea — hundreds of thousands of people died. We’ll never make that mistake again. Oh, and here are the changes we’re making to ensure that the horrible bloodbaths associated with our involvement in Central America, Southeast Asia, East Timor, Turkey, etc. don’t happen here.”
6. Minimal Liberty: “We understand you soldiers signed on to defend the U.S., not liberate other nations. We hope you’ll agree that disposing of Mr. Hussein is the right thing to do, but we’ll understand if you’re suspicious of the whole enterprise. This will be an all-volunteer mission — here’s your chance to back out.”
It’s precisely the opposition to “utilitarianism of rights” that has soured me on libertarianism, at least in its most dogmatic variety.Quote:”It is not just to kill one innocent person in order to save two, since people are not means to ends, but should be treated as ends in themselves.”
A nobler sentiment has seldom been heard. Indeed,it’s on a par with “eye for an eye leaves both blind” and “in a just world no one should ever go hungry.”
Out in the real world, however,utilitarian choices can not be avoided. In WWII,for example, Allied governments violated civil liberties in a massive way, compelling young people to travel to distant places and to kill, or be killed by, people who may or may not have presented any threat to their safety or freedom beforehand.
However, I dare anyone to argue that,should the Allies not have taken these steps, the future for the rest of mankind would not have been much, much bleaker.
If virtue, rather than applicability, were enough to prove an idea, Communism would have been victorious. To paraphrase Feynman, for a successful policy,reality must take precedence over lofty goals, for nature cannot be fooled.
re:Minimal Procedural Regularity:
The Congress of the United States did authorise the President to use military force against Iraq,in order to topple its government,which most non-insane people interpret as “war”.
I say non-insane,because there’s this straw-man argument put forth by the far left,that if the Congress doesn’t use the particular words “Declaration of War”,the whole affair is somehow unconstitutional.
Nuts.
Antoine Clarke – Your reason number 2 is an abandonment of libertarianism so of course it’s not going to be popular on Samizdata. To give in to the islamists is to say “I am willing to be a second class citizen. I am willing to have my wife and daughters humiliated on a daily basis. I am willing to be discriminated against in the tax system based on religion, in the justice system, in my daily habits and dress.” If you can say all those things then, yes, nuclear attacks and race riots seem an awful price to pay to avoid such things.
Worm
The British armed forces are not properly equipped………kit up first, then go to war.
N.B. This is not an argument against US intervention in Iraq. I note approvingly that in the Second World War, the US federal government starting arming before launching assaults on Axis-occupied territories. (/em>
Sorry, you are factually in error on reason No. 1. Here is a story in today’s NY Times describing US equipment problems in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/03/politics/03ARMY.html?ei=5062&en=6cee11e34772434e&ex=1076389200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
On reason (2), Switzerland did not declare war on Germany because (a) the Germans showed no sign of ever wanting to invade Switzerland, largely because this would have been a particularly difficult invasion to carry out, what with mountains, every Swiss male being a trained soldier, etc., and (b) Switzerland’s banking system was too useful to wreck, from the point of view of both sides. Anyway, by 1941 Switzerland was entirely surrounded by Axis territory. Declaring war would just be plain daft by then.
As for (3) the correct way to demolish this argument is by reductio ad absurdum. So here goes.
If instead of taxing the good people of Yorkshire to fund a social experiment in Basra, suppose you were talking about taxing the good peope of No. 1 Aspadistra Avenue so that the fire brigade is there to put out a fire at No. 2 Aspadistra Avenue which would eventually consume No. 1 as well if not stopped, would you be against that?
So, I’d say that apart from your points (1), (2) and (3) you’re on the button.
Appeasement to prevent half a dozen nuclear strikes in conditions where others could do the fighting may be justified, but I’d like you to elaborate a bit more on what you mean by an internal war. If you are saying you believe there are considerable numbers of people in Britain whose loyalty is to any foreign invaders who will bring tyranny and sharia law to these Isles, I would welcome actions to root out this fifth column. Why should fear that they will be killed if we don’t appease be a factor in appeasement’s favour? We were better off without Lord Haw-Haw and we’d be better off without them.
Many commenters seem to have misunderstood Antoine’s argument. It’s not particularly anarchist, nor is it in favor of universal appeasement of Islamo-fascism. It’s that the UK ought to focus on internal security and free-ride off of the US’s focus on external security, because UK participation in foreign military operations against Islamo-fascists might provoke terrorist attacks within the UK that might not happen otherwise. While I believe this argument to be mistaken, it is not an inherently immoral or illogical position.
The most obvious mistake is that Islamo-fascist terrorists have tried to attack countries that have opposed military operations in the War on Terror. For instance, France has broken up several Al Qaeda terrorist plots within its own territory despite its opposition to the liberation of Iraq. For Antoine’s argument to hold, he would have to show that these attacks would increase rather than decrease as a result of support for the War on Terror instead of opposition to it.
However, Antoine doesn’t show any such thing. Rather, he seems to assume without argument that there simply wouldn’t be any threat to Britain if it weren’t for British foreign military intervention. The rest of his argument fails without this assumption. Liberating foreigners from tyranny ceases to be altruistic welfare-statism if that tyranny threatens you with death. Then it becomes self-interested realpolitik.
Libertarianism and individual rights will be early victims of a real war with Islaam. Indeed, if a nuclear strike occurs anywhere – and not just in the western world – the rules of engagement of the current War on Terror will transmogrify pdq into total war. No nation will still be able to consider intelligence and selective military intervention as adequate. They will have been proved fatally constraining.
At the moment the WoT is shaped by the well-known problems of cracking cellular terrorism, the diasporic nature of Moslems in the west and the liberal belief in the basic decency and individual rights of those Moslems. A nuclear stroke and the sure knowledge of more nuclear strikes will change all that – I don’t need to explain how.
>>The Congress of the United States did authorise the President to use military force against Iraq,in order to topple its government,which most non-insane people interpret as “war”.>I say non-insane,because there’s this straw-man argument put forth by the far left,that if the Congress doesn’t use the particular words “Declaration of War”,the whole affair is somehow unconstitutional.
>>The Congress of the United States did authorise the President to use military force against Iraq,in order to topple its government,which most non-insane people interpret as “war”.>I say non-insane,because there’s this straw-man argument put forth by the far left,that if the Congress doesn’t use the particular words “Declaration of War”,the whole affair is somehow unconstitutional.
T. J. Madison:
You demand, at minimum, perfection.
Perfection is scarce these days. You either do the best you can (what the US and Britain did) or you do nothing (a la France), claiming that the preparations and conditions aren’t right.
>>You demand, at minimum, perfection.<< PERFECTION? How much effort would have been required to get a DoW? How much effort would it have taken to have the right troops available for the job with 10 YEARS WARNING? As for the honesty and accountability part, that doesn't take much effort, but is does take BALLS, which do seem to be in short supply in the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex. We're expecting the most corrupt component of the largest unaccountable bureaucracy on the planet to rebuild a devastated nation using Central Planning. Forgive me if my faith in socialism is insufficient to support this kind of project without further safeguards and assurances.
N.B. This is not an argument against US intervention in Iraq. I note approvingly that in the Second World War, the US federal government starting arming before launching assaults on Axis-occupied territories
But we also provided huge amounts under lend-lease to Britain and USSR thereby incurring the wrath of Germany through Japan (to make a quick and dirty of it). What if we had stayed completely neutral as many in our country wanted? Perhaps we have different views of the matter but, while the RAF did amazing things, could Britain have held out long term but for a lack of ‘pure disinterest’ on our part?
Having said this, I agree that the military is a ‘service’ like any other. But when one analyzes the proper role of State it is the preservation of property. When it involves large States and economic soundness, it also involves existing markets. Force should be used when markets and trading partners are threatened. This was the case with Saddam in my opinion. As far as war on terrorism, this is much more oblique certainly, but the logic is the same. Preventing harm and damage to property is priority number one. It is when the military need is inverted and becomes too ‘preventative’ that problems arise.
One last thought. As things exist now, do you really think that any Western democracy in Europe has a snow ball’s chance without the US? Our (US and Europe’s) population rates are declining while third world populations (including islamofascist) are growing, in some cases alarmingly fast. If we don’t try and bring them out of their 12th century mentality it is going to be a dark world. But then again we only have our space and time to deal with. Still, it’s not easy to know when to get involved when it seems more like public policy than self preservation.
Following up on Jacksonian’s statement, let me ask Antoine this, lest he think the suggestion that America could come to consider Britain an enemy ludicrous: suppose we are hit by an Islamic nuke, and a month later the Finley Park mosque is still standing? What are we to think then?
And T.J. Madison is just smoking something (which, in true libertarian form, I wouldn’t lock him up for unless he became an immediate danger to his neighbors). What procedural irregularities are you talking about? There is absolutely no requirement in the Constitution that a declaration of war must contain the performative statement, “We declare war on x”. Please, get a real argument or do something else with the bandwidth.
Toolkien,
Britain declined peace with Germany in 1941, after the victory of The Few. We did so because Churchill’s government considered that Germany absolutely had to be defeated and civilisation restored to the occupied lands. This decision would never have been made without American materiel support. But it was not contingent upon American military intervention. Actually, American intervention did not save us so much as save western Europe from Stalin. He had the only non-Axis troops on the ground while the sole offensive weapon we had was Bomber Command. Unprecedentedly resource-rich though it was, the heavy bomber offensive was predicated on the fallacy of area or morale bombing. Still, the astonishing technological and numerical growth of Bomber Command between 1938 and 1945 shows that we were perfectly capable of keeping at it, at least until the Red Army had its victory.
This scenario does not translate to the WoT. In considering our present capability sans America, the Christian world does, of course, include all the nations of Eastern Europe and Russia. The latter is definitely in the front line and isn’t known for messing about. Thusfar, their troubles in Chechnya demonstrate that terror cannot be beaten even by Russian military means. Therefore, since nuclear strikes are not bearable, something more formidable – such as genocide – will probably be needed.
War is about the death of millions. “Their” millions don’t count. Only ours do. That is the nature of the beast.
Re Mr. Madison’s #6 – So it is no longer sufficient to abolish the draft and pay for an all volunteer army. Now we must let our soldiers vote on each mission?
TJ Madison:
If you think that what is going on in Iraq is central planning, you are largely incorrect. What is going on in Iraq is the creation of law & order. Despit what some head in the clouds libertarians may believe, the State has some uses – and tracking down criminals and persecuting them is one of them. Creating a system and society where things like property rights and freedom of contract are respected takes a State. It takes the enforcement of an impartial judiciary and police force to create a functioning society.
Some folks may here may disagree with me, but it’s absolutely true. Any system that expects private actors to enforce all laws and contracts equally and objectively is bound for being taken advantage of, and eventually, failure.
Antoinne-
You made a fundamental error. You assumed that you lived in a world where philosophical differences matter. They don’t. This war is one of simple and stark choices. TJ Madison and I have more in common than you and I. TJ & I are arguing about tactics under a shared paradigm of survival. You seem to think that shades of Libertarianism matter.
Point #2 is in error. It assumes that appeasement is a viable strategy. It is not, for two reasons.
The first if the terrorists themselves. They see appeasement as weakness. It is what prompted Arafat to refuse the two-state solution when he was offered it. He thought Israel was weak. He was wrong. It is also what convinced bin Laden that he could attack he USA with impunity. Our past actions said we would retreat. The appeasers are always the first targets – because the Arabs themselves neither fear nor respect appeasers, and will kill you for their lack.
Secondly, besides the actions of the terrorists, appeasers must also consider the effect such a strategy will have on the United States. Jacksonian has already addressed this issue, but I will elaborate. At this time London seems to be the epicenter of Islamist activity in Europe. If you can’t get your act together, and a nuclear or biological attack is launched at the United States from London, god have mercy upon you. I don’t think that we would nuke London, but do you really want to take that chance? Do you think we would hestiate more or less if was Paris? Istanbul?
Point #3 is probably why I am not a Libertarian. I was born an American, but I could leave if I wanted to. I remain here understanding that the Constitution is my contract with the rest of my fellow Americans. It means that if I joined the Armed Forces, I would be bound to follow orders. It means that if the President and Congress called up a draft to defend the nation, I would go. It is a contract with my government, and I may abolish it at will (either by leaving or by getting other Americans to agree with me and vote for Amendment). I put forward that I am more Libertarian than some because I agree to live by the terms of this contract. The Constitution allows the President and Congress broad, discretionary powers – held in trust by them, for me, and the rest of my fellow citizens. The powers are more limited by ballot box than the terms of the contract; so they are occasionally put to uses I would not wish. But I live with that.
Your scenario #1 is regrettable. I suggest you write to your MP regarding the issue.
Your scenario #2 would never occur. After the first US strike, Islam is the idiot. They would cease to exist except as citizens in allied nations. There would no longer be any nations of men from the Nile to the Indus. Khadafi understands this. Saudi Arabis and Iran do not.
Appeasment is the same as “Aid and Comfort to the enemy”, as America understands it. Learn that well.
If any replies to this post take comfort in their Libertarian philosophy, that’s fine. But don’t expect me to care. I would still gladly see you die before your actions lead to harm for my friends, family or fellow Americans. The line in the sand was drawn for us. Brits must choose (and largely have, I fully appreciate) which side they stands on. I’m sorry if you don’t like that, but too bad.
TJ Madison, your points are full of what could be uncharitably called “lies.” Minimal– you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
1. Minimal Procedural Regularity: “We the United States Congress hereby declare War against the nation of Iraq . . “
Achieved at least to the level of “Minimal,” and in fact beyond that. The resolution authorizing force is widely agreed upon as an act of war; there are many such examples in US history. I approve of being non-squeamish and using the actual term “Declaration of War,” but surely “Minimal Procedural Regularity” was achived.
2. Minimal Honesty: “Mr. Hussein isn’t a threat to anyone but his own citizens. But we just can’t sit back and watch as he feeds people into shredders. We have to do something.”
Honestly mistaken intelligence is not the same as a lie. Indeed, Mr. Hussein himself believed that he had an active WMD program, and he did have a rudimentary one. He certainly threatened those outside his own borders, including the people of Israel, Kuwait, and Iraq. (I’m also a little disturbed at a supposed libertarian referring to the people of Iraq as “Mr. Hussein’s citizens,” but we’ll let that pass.) He was not currently firing weapons, but certainly had an intention of doing so again, once he had the opportunity. It was only a standing army at his borders that prevented it. Minimal Honesty is clearly met, since both war opponents and proponents believed the intelligence. Minimal Honesty does not require that every statement believed to be true was actually true.
3. Minimal Competence: “Since we’ve been preparing for this eventuality for several years, we’d like to introduce the two brand-new Security Divisions we’ve created for this purpose. Both are full-strength and consist of military police fluent in Arabic and well versed in both U.S. legal procedures and local customs.”
Considering how quickly the war was won in contrast to the quagmire predictions of war opponents, Minimal Competence was easily met. Indeed, the war opponents embarrassed themselves here with their own “lies” about the difficulty of the war.
4. Minimal Accountability: “In sharp contrast to previous operations, where excessive secrecy helped incompetents and criminals cover their ass, we will encourage public oversight of our military activities whenever possible.
Oh, and here are the procedures and institutions we will deploy which will allow the liberated Iraqis to have some recourse in case individuals in the aforementioned Security Divisions behave badly.”
Easily accomplished and done. Certainly the embedding program is a form of public oversight. This article demonstrates that there is a procedure and insitution in place to investigate alleged misbehavior by US troops, as there is currently such an investigation. Minimum Accountability, easily met.
5. Minimal Responsiblity: “The sanctions were a terrible idea — hundreds of thousands of people died. We’ll never make that mistake again. Oh, and here are the changes we’re making to ensure that the horrible bloodbaths associated with our involvement in Central America, Southeast Asia, East Timor, Turkey, etc. don’t happen here.”
You’re the one “lying” here, though perhaps unintentionally. “Hundreds of thousands of people” is an exaggeration, although the real total is close to 100,000. You’re also confusingly accusing the US of every “bloodbath,” regardless of whether the US used sanctions, intervened militarily, was an ally or merely had normal relations, including trade, with an oppressive government. There are no “changes” that the US could make that would be acceptable in your worldview, apparently. I notice that you don’t include among your charges of bloodbaths the slaughter in Rwanda, where the US’s crime would be your supposed best policy, doing nothing and let it happen. Doesn’t that make you just as guilty of avoiding Minimal Responsibilty, by not saying how your preferred policy would fail to prevent the Rwandan bloodbath?
In any case, Minimal Responsibility has clearly been met, because various US politicans and advisors, all the way to President Bush, has called for various changes in US policy aimed at preventing bloodbaths and suffering around the world. It’s the antiwar types who apparently favor the status quo ante.
6. Minimal Liberty: “We understand you soldiers signed on to defend the U.S., not liberate other nations. We hope you’ll agree that disposing of Mr. Hussein is the right thing to do, but we’ll understand if you’re suspicious of the whole enterprise. This will be an all-volunteer mission — here’s your chance to back out.”
The US Armed Forces are all volunteer. Indeed, soldiers were allowed to quit before the operation with honorable discharges, and some small number did. Minimal Liberty is easily met by an all-volunteer armed forces, with no drafting, but the USA went beyond that.
In summary, your points are rubbish and easily refuted. Your points only make sense if you completely misunderstand the meaning of the word “Minimal.”
My support of this war hinges totally on whether it is a defensive action or not. WMD’s and freeing the Iraqis were bonus concepts, the latter of which, it appears, being the only bonus we got.
From a fundamental viewpoint I agree with point 3 of the original post. I also understand the logic of point 1. You have to consider the cost of an undertaking because, no matter how great it is, its useless if you are not prepared or capable. Point 2 I have a problem with, because I dont believe in fear. Fear is the mind-killer (my favorite movie quote), so I try not to make important decisions with a dead mind.
Not attacking Iraq may not necessarily be appeasement, it may simply be a move of indifference. Not attacking Al-qaeda and other terrorist organizations, is indeed appeasement, and is utter foolishness. I am among those that supported the war on the premise of tactics. If you cannot successfully attack your enemy, you attack his supply lines. Iraq and other countries were known suppliers of terrorist activity.
Some would argue that Iraq contributed very little to terrorism, Al-Qaeda in particular, compared to many other middle eastern nations towards which we are far more friendly. This leads to the concept that Iraq was the easy target. If you are shooting pool, you take the easy shots first, then the rest will be easier to sink. Iraq had been in violation of the UN for years, he had proven himself to be a monster, and gaining support for a war in that area without completely destroying our [the US] reputation was far easier than with any other nation. It was also a way to show our resolve and strength without directly angering the Islamic nations, because Sadaam wasnt that highly supported in the Islamic world, and an assault on him did not necessarily equal an assault on Islam in general. Further, it showed the surrounding countries that we are not to be trifled with, and that your dictatorial leaders are not infallible, nor are they supernaturally in power and under the protection of Allah.
In the end, my support for the war is still there in theory, tho, if my concept of this being a defensive move designed for long-term protection of US interests (her allies included) is ever shaken, my support goes with it. I do not support this as a freedom mission, nor as a “we think you might have something bad but we dont know” mission. Life is about freedom and choices, but its also about perspective. The big picture is not as simple as we often wish it to be.
btw – T.J. concerning how hard it would have been to get a DoW, have you seen what lumps of mud we have for congressmen these days? Its a whole lot of double speak and CYA, and balls are what it takes to do something right. A lot of our government officials are right out of the pages of Atlas Shrugged, no one wants to think or make a decision for fear of blame.
>>Re Mr. Madison’s #6 – So it is no longer sufficient to abolish the draft and pay for an all volunteer army. Now we must let our soldiers vote on each mission?
If that mission is demonstably irrelevant to the defense of either the U.S. or a nation the U.S. has a defense treaty with, yes.
Interesting post- raising valid issues…
I think whether you are against the war boils down to whether or not you are prepared to see your children brought up Taliban style.
If Islam became the principle religion of Europe- I reckon that the endemic bureacracy and nitpicking of the European elite would ensure that the regime incrementally became the most vicious Islamic regime ever to come into existance… the number of deaths that would result would be astronomically high and the amount of suffering caused well in excess of that of the second world war….
… That idea, although far fetched is not too far from what almost happened in 1940’s Europe and taking into account the history of communism and recent cheapness of life expressed through islamism, combined with the eagerness of idiotarians to destroy western society it seems all too real a possibility…
… anyway – judging by that criteria a fairly major nuclear war would be less damaging to Europe than a long term Islamist regime…
I realise that is an extreme view…. and it is not what I think will really happen…. it is just a possibility… but the fact that it is a possibility is appalling and therefore I think worth doing everything to avoid… and doing everything means being prepared for offensive war as well as prepared for all forms of negotiation.
“Consider this scenario: by the end of the ‘war on terrorism’ in 2015, France has not had a single nuclear terrorist strike, the US has had 20, the UK has had six and Spain, Italy and Poland one apiece. Who’s the idiot?”
assuming that we didn’t turn the Middle East into a sheet of glass after the first strike, i’d still say that France would be the idiot. i’d rather die fighting than wait for the slaughter like a simple-minded heifer. and slaughter would come. the terrorists want to conquer the world, much as Hitler would have done if he had not been stopped.
I think the liberation argument is being falsely characterised as utilitarian. The problem with disallowing any ‘defensive’ action that ultimately involves a risk of harming innocent people is that a criminal could simply arm themselves with hostages to avoid any resistance. The anarcho-libertarian could argue that some Iraqi civilians had enlisted the help of the Coalition of the Willing to defend their rights and that the action against Iraq was a reasonable use of force.
Badly reasoned nonsense.
First of all, anecdotes of equipment shortage or failure is not limited to Britain. I hear of quite a few cases of similar things for the US as well. Perhaps the US should also call it off? But if the US calls it off, how will UK get the free ride?
The simple reality that Antoine does not recognize is that there is always a lag beween demand created by equipment shortage or failure and supply. The idea of perfect efficiency is in economic textbooks, not the real world.
Second, Antoine assumes that there will be no cost to UK if it did not aid the endeavor. Really? Does Antoine seriously believe that the “special relationship” will survive such an unnatural breach? I can assure Antoine that the losses UK will incur in everything from bad publicity in the US to a cut in transfer of military technology and intelligence will be catastrophic for the UK.
It is precisely because Britain has often went with the US to the ends of the earth that US has such confidence in Britain and is willing to share secrets with UK that it shares with no one else. (Just to give one example out of a dozen I can cite, UK has been allowed to purchase Tomahwak cruise missiles, a cruise missile much superior to Britain’s own air-launched cruise missile. Britain is the only country other than the US that has access to this weapon.) How can anyone in his right mind suggest that all this does not matter and should be thrown away?
At a time when Conservatives in UK are busy trying to enlist Washington against Brussels, to take the course Antoine suggests will be to cut off a potentially valuable source of aid.
Antoine suggests that UK should cast its lot with France. In so doing, it may help encourage the US to leave UK to fend for itself against the EU. Talk about short-sightedness.
Tucking one’s tail between one’s hind legs and run away is hardly characteristic of the British people. It can also incur serious consequences for a nation’s morale.
Has Antoine ever considered what happened to France? From the emphasis of “revanche” in WWI to the “strange defeat” of WWII and to the France of today, the decline in national morale is truly shocking and deplorable. This is not a France that even de Gaulle would recognize. This decline is a result of that surrender. Antoine would suggest that Britain follow in France’s footsteps.
Others have talked at length about the perils of adopting appeasement. Let me just add that Churchill expressly forbid the Foreign Office from seeking terms in 1940 precisely because he feared that one thing will lead to another. Many things carry a momentum of its own. From UK staying out of the fight, God knows what deplorable things will happen afterwards.
Antoine might consult a former UK PM who once said: “How horrible it is that we should be digging trenches here because of a quarrel in a far away country between people of whom we know nothing.” There is much parallel between what Antoine suggested and what happened then. Many Czechs today can still quote that phrase by memory.
I admit that Antoine’s single-minded focus on British interests is quite admirable. It is as it should be. The problem about the single-mindedness is that it apparently led to a failure of imagination. A failure to imagine potential threats resulting from a course of doing nothing.
This point has been made already by several commentators, but I feel it must be reinforced. As an American living on the continent, I find that europeans seem unable to grasp the concept.
Point #2 is not an option. The US will not absorb 20 nuclear strikes on it’s soil. It will not even absorb a single strike on the soil of it’s allies. Our response to such an event would give a whole new meaning to the term “genocide”. Perversely, the same people who accuse Americans of being warmongers also believe that we do not have the stomach to inflict massive, indiscriminate violence upon our enemies. History tells a different tale. Dig out your Encyclopedia Britannica and look up “North American Indians, History of”.
Those of you who wish to avoid an “American Empire” striding across the globe smashing their enemies should be praying that the current policy works against the Islamists. The alternative is not something any rational person wishes to see.
you are shooting pool, you take the easy shots first, then the rest will be easier to sink.
An interesting analogy, but not necessarily an apt one. In competative pool, at least at pub league level where I used to play, sinking the easy shots was a recipie for losing.
You’d leave the easy to sink pools and try to hamstring your oponent by putting their balls into poor positions while setting up your winning position.
Now, there is an argument for this with Iraq. The real problem is Saudi. By winning in Iraq, which by any estimate should have been easy, you can use Iraq for your key Mid East base and shift forces out of Saudi – racking up your power position against the Sauds and also making a strong statement to Syria and Iran. In fact, this makes really good strategic sense.
However, for this to work effectively you need to have a stable Iraq in which you can station forces for the medium to long term in order to bring pressure to bear.
We might still get into that position, but I think we’re stuck in a low grade terrorist war for a signficant amount of time which means that it will actually be harder to handle terrorist cells elsewhere.
The other interesting thing is while the French earnt a lot of ire over Iraq – their prosecution of Al-Quaeda cells inside France has been more than just a little agressive. But fighting internal terror cells and picking up the pieces from terrorist action is something they have all too much experience of.
>>Achieved at least to the level of “Minimal,” and in fact beyond that. The resolution authorizing force is widely agreed upon as an act of war; there are many such examples in US history. I approve of being non-squeamish and using the actual term “Declaration of War,” but surely “Minimal Procedural Regularity” was achived.
Here’s the problem: The resolution on Iraq DELEGATED THE DECISION on whether or not war would occur to the President. Now when/if the war goes south, Congress can say, “We gave the President the authority to make the decision, and he made the wrong decision. It’s not our fault.” This is entirely unacceptable.
>>Considering how quickly the war was won in contrast to the quagmire predictions of war opponents, Minimal Competence was easily met. Indeed, the war opponents embarrassed themselves here with their own “lies” about the difficulty of the war.
I don’t recall being particularly concerned about the ability of the USG to crush the Iraqi army. What I WAS concerned about was the ability of the military to restore order and due process quickly enough to gain popular support. This was not done. Now the mission is in jeopardy, and this is why. This was entirely forseeable and preventable.
>>There are no “changes” that the US could make that would be acceptable in your worldview, apparently.
I would be much happier if my tax dollars weren’t used to back people like Suharto, The Shah, Sharon, or Stalin.
>>I notice that you don’t include among your charges of bloodbaths the slaughter in Rwanda, where the US’s crime would be your supposed best policy, doing nothing and let it happen.
You misunderstand me. If I believed that the US liberation missions — in Rwanda, Iraq, or elsewhere — would lead to a long term net increase in total freedom, it would be unnecessary to tax me to fund them. I’d be cutting big checks to the Pentagon voluntarily, assuming I didn’t actually join the armed forces.
I don’t believe that the USG, IN ITS CURRENT STATE, is a good tool for this task. In fact, I believe using the USG as a tool of national liberation is extremely dangerous right now.
The USG does a good job of defending respectable military allies (like NATO) against invasions by large conventional armies. When it starts to act outside this perimeter, big problems emerge. When the USG tries to manipulate puppet governments, watch out — this often leads to Ye Livelist Awfulness. Even when US troops intervene directly things can end up worse than before. I believe this is because the USG isn’t accountable to the people it’s supposed to be “liberating”.
This said, increasing the accountability, honesty, integrity, and competence of the Pentagon system would increase the probability of successful liberation while minimizing the costs and risks associated with such projects. As these issues are addressed, my support for US intervention will increase.
I’m not anti-war on principle. I’m anti-war right now for reasons of logistics and institutional logic. If someone can explain how “it’s all going to be different now” and disasters like Cambodia, Laos, Guatemala, Panama, El Salvador, Iran, Afghanistan, Turkey, the Phillipines, Keelhaul, Vietnam, and especially East Timor can be avoided, then I’m in.
In order:
1. Supplies are always screwed up in war.
2. First, it clearly is possible to defait Islamic fundamentalism by force of arms, since we have enough weaponry to erase human life from the planet. Second, appeasement does not work with people whose single aim is to kill you.
3. I’m not a libertarian, so I don’t give a damn about this. (And this sort of nonsense is why I’m not a libertarian.)
1. Sad. Kick the MoD and try to get them to improve supplies.
2. Won’t happen. Simple as that. As has been stated, the U.S. will not accept 20 nuclear attacks. One would lead to the nation going on a war footing – we’re talking about millions of America troops heading into battle. Two would lead to massive nuclear retaliation. There won’t be a third attack. And depending on who is president at the time, they might skip that first step. And the reason France didn’t get nuked is because they’ve already surrendered.
3. Yeah, whatever.
Finally, the reason we should be worried about mistaken intelligence is that we need reliable and timely information about what our enemies are up to.
And refusing to support a just and necessary war just because Tony Blair supports it does make you an idiot.
Ugh. Defeat
“Supplies are always screwed up in war”
Yeah, but troops should probably have the full complement of standard equipment when they first set off, no? Particularly if this particular war was timed to suit us in the first place (not like anyone else imposed a timetable). I can accept food etc. supplies being difficult, but troops not having flak jackets, desert boots etc., that’s something that could have been prepared for quite easily by buying more beforehand. I don’t see why this would’ve been difficult… Count troops going into Iraq, count flak jackets… oops! discrepancy… rectify.
Agreed, it shouldn’t have happened. Always does, though. Which I admit is no excuse for not trying to fix the problem.