We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
We got him I just returned from a night at the pub with a journalist friend and no sooner had I arrived home than I heard the news. Osama bin Laden is dead. May he rest in pieces and be fed to pigs. Maybe we could even put his head on a pike in front of the White House for a few days and spread bread crumbs around it so the pigeons will roost there… and we could encourage people to walk their dogs around the pike…
Am I sounding barbaric? Yep. He is very “special”.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I’d much rather send the head to Texas. There’s a retired gentleman there who’d like to see it.
But pike in front of either the White House or Capitol would be nice.
Perhaps a few days on a world tour at the Tower of London?
I have been looking at satellite photos of Abbotisbad on Google and something interesting is the number and size of Pakistani police and army facilities in that town. I am wondering how we kept them out of the fight… or did someone just show up and gently suggest they stay inside?
Darn! This is the worst thing that could happen! Western Forces should have captured him alive, so we could send him to solitary confinement for the rest of his life! Now some people might try to claim that he’s a martyr, dying in a fight, whereas if he died of old age, alone, powerless- then he’s no role model. Whilst I’m glad he’s gone, I hope his death doesn’t inspire imitators.
Good news, but the war continues.
‘Nuke’ Gray i wonder if people really think when say things like that…
Gratz 🙂 Better late than never.
Ok, time to declare victory and go home and leave the Afghans to sort out the rest themselves.
With the exception of Mullah Omah in Q (he should be killed also), agreed Perry.
The Dutchman has done it (although they were Navy Seals they were based in Afghanistan – under the command of P.), but Obama will take the credit – which is only natual for a Commander in Chief.
Already a crowd outside the Whitehouse (government and media employees no doubt) has been chanting “four more years” according to BBC reports.
However, let Obama have his big day – he deserves it.
After all he could have vetoed the mission (on the “create a martyr” grounds that Nuke Gray mentions).
But Obama did not veto the mission – and he was RIGHT not to veto it.
Of course OBL was never going to surrender (although that chance was offered to him) – he was sincere (just as Hitler was) and even knock out gas would have still given him the time to kill himself (or have one of his bodyguards kill him).
The idea that he could be taken alive is wishful thinking.
So YES Obama made the right call by allowing the mission to go ahead.
“But you hate Obama Paul”.
Yes I do hate Obama (I hate all Cong), but I love truth more than I hate Obama – and he made the right choice.
Not quite…:
And now we hear that his body was buried at sea – how convenient.
That same report has Pakistani Intelligence claiming to have taken active part in the operation, with at least some US personnel denying it.
Nuke, I disagree: I think that he would have been much more of a subject of worship had he been kept alive in a jail somewhere. OBL needed to go – he’s gone, and the world is better for it. I want al-Zawahiri at least as much though.
I don’t think the government representatives of “free” nations should be bursting into homes in foreign lands and shooting the occupants through the forehead. Regardless of their crimes.
Well Jaded, I’ll take the liberty of channeling Perry here and say that if we are to have governments at all, that is about the only thing they should be doing. Job very well done.
Britain was once governed by principles such as this:
You can’t just kill whosoever you please without first ascertaining their guilt.
This dead man was an evil guy who owned up to the bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in ’98. And he also took credit for 9-11. I find it difficult to celebrate anyone’s death but this is one guy I am glad has been put to rest. And we need not speculate under what circumstances Obama gave orders because we just do not know. As for martyrdom, that’s not for rational people to control. Let whoever chooses to idolize a murderer go ahead, but they are forewarned.
He’s been buried at sea. That was quick. Cue the tinfoil hat brigade….
So he wasn’t in the “tribal areas” at all, he was INSIDE a Pakistani military compound? Hmmm… there’s going to be trouble over this.
It’s entertaining watching the usual Have Your Say eejits struggling to find a contrarian position to this one. Focus to date seems to be concocting conspiracy theories about the burial at sea. My guess is they’ve kept the body but don’t want any focus on it. Perhaps even to literally deliver his head on a plate.
Then there’s the “I can’t rejoice over any death, not even this one” high ground. Well, I disagree. I hope he had time to get genuinely frightened and I hope it hurt, although the photo suggests not.
Rejoice, rejoice.
Never mind the tinfoil hat crap.
Why would they burn the body of a man they already claimed to have killed nearly ten years ago. If they had his body on a US ship then into the freezer and home with him for autopsy, analysis and documentation that no-one could ever deny.
The only reason to burn is to hide failure or the fact that he was not there when the troops arrived.
The fact that so many on this blog and others will believe a totally unsupported claim like this is the only suprise in this “news”.
Jaded: as have been pointed out, his guilt has been well ascertained (including by himself, publicly, many times), he was positively identified, and there were almost no collateral damage as a result of that operation. Not only that what governments of free countries should be doing – that is, ideally, how they should be doing it. And, what Owinok said.
Thanks for illustrating my point nicely there Mr Ecks.
I’m afraid I’m with Mr. Ecks on this one. Old Holborn has a remarkable suspicious ‘before’ and ‘after’ photo pair.
Manuel, all reports seem to indicate that it was not a military compound, but an unusually large piece of property in a suburban area outside of Islamabad.
OK – not in a military compound, but as the BBC puts it:
“the compound lies well within Abbottabad’s military cantonment – it is likely the area would have had a constant and significant military presence and checkpoints”
And either 200 or 800 yards away from their elite military academy.
As I say, suspect we haven’t heard the last of this one.
T|he fake photo shot is an interesting one – looks like journalist opportunism to me. Or a vast shady conspiracy, of course. My own conspiracy theory is that a bunch of US Special Forces flew in and shot the guy – if you look carefully at the news, quite a lot of the evidence points to that.
totally unsupported claim, slightly fishy immediate burial at sea (did you see what I did there;-)). If you’d asked me yesterday I’d have said he’d been dead for years.
Nice if it’s true… but tin foil aside, it’s not like the us government have always been entirely honest.
My bad, it is a fake photo.
Sooo, now he’s brown bread, we can repeal Homeland Security and disband the TSA?
So, the Torygraph says the US have the body, the BBC say burial at sea; either way, the truth will out, and I hope it’s the former (I’m not usually a tinfoil hat wearer, but burial at sea does strike me as rather desperate, when it comes to possible cover-ups).
I like the idea of putting the head on a pike; in fact, I think it would be better still to incorporate the skull into whatever memorial is constructed at the proposed Freedom Tower. Alternatively, I’m sure a talented silversmith would be able to add suitable fittings to turn it into a presidential drinking vessel.
“The only reason to burn is to hide failure or the fact that he was not there when the troops arrived.”
Another reason is multiculti PC emptyheadedness. By Islamic tradition, Muslims need to be buried 24 hours after death.
With any luck, someone got the clever idea to strip the meat from his bones, bury the meat and seal the bones in a giant Ziploc bag and lovingly mailed to the CIA for storage.
Hell, it’s what the Soviets did with Hitler.
The lesson of this weekend is: the best time to release a forged birth certificate is two days before you kill the most wanted man in the world. Now NOBODY can ever fuck with you again about your citizenship, even if you WERE born in some third world shithole to a prostitute and a communist.
You can’t just kill whosoever you please without first ascertaining their guilt.
Posted by JadedLibertarian at May 2, 2011 10:09 AM
Yes. Cause multiple video-tapes confessions from Osama Bin Laden wasn’t enough.
Robert:
I’m sorry I didn’t realise that unverified and inconsistent videos posted on Al Jazeera were considered indisputable evidence. Bin Laden himself seemed to be unsure of what his role was – at least looking at the videos. Also a confession in and of itself is not evidence of guilt. For example, he may have been taking credit for things he didn’t do, he may have been insane – and so on. Courts are meant to tease these matters out.
I also didn’t realise we lived in countries which practice Judge Dredd style summary justice.
If his guilt was that obvious, we have nothing to lose by giving him a fair trial. But what specifically is Bin Laden guilty of? Something to do with 9/11 – but what did he personally do exactly? Who (if anyone) asked him to do it? Who funded him?
These are the sort of questions you have to ask before you can call putting a bullet in a man’s head justice.
No, I suspect he was killed to pervert the ends of justice, not to meet them. I’m willing to wager that Bin Laden’s supporters numbered among the great and the good of the Islamic world. Couldn’t have him naming names during a fair trial now, could we?
I should remember to use irony tags next time. Seriously, there were at least several pairs of boots on the ground there (24, last J herad).
Jaded: he reportedely was asked to surrender, which he (refused, with a consequent firefight ensuing and ending in him being shot.
manuel: I didn’t know that – thanks.
Indeed… you channelled me perfectly. If ever there was a legitimate use of force, this was it.
Sorry for all the typos: the phone is smart(ish), but the keys are way too small.
I just watched the BBC state that the Americans celebrating OBL’s death “reminds us of those scenes of people celebrating 9/11”. It was directed at an American journalist, who rather politely but firmly rejected the comparison. Extraordinary.
There’s also an extraordinary outburst from Frank Gardner, “security correspondent”:
“He succeeded in his aim of waking up the the Islamic community – by saying, ‘look at the justices being inflicted on you – you have a duty to fight’.”
Er, right, thanks Frank. That’s the spirit.
I’m not sure which is worse – the forelock-tugging sycophancy of the Royal Wedding coverage or the sneering scepticism like this.
I think that they tend to go hand in hand, but I’ll take the former over the latter any time: at least it doesn’t desecrate so many lives lost. The BBC is an abomination.
People get confused about the difference between a war and a police raid. In wars, you slaughter the enemy because they are your enemy. You don’t need a court order before you are allowed to pull the trigger on the bad guys.
good riddance, they should bury the body in pig fat.
though this is not necessarily good news.
Obama and OBL share pretty much the same aims – the destruction of America and the west.
However Obama knows that by killing osama he can fool the less perceptive of us into believing he is a patriotic defender of the West.
And if this helps to get Obama a second term then it could well mean that OBL will get his wish after all.
I favored a more moderate treatment for him, for instance immersing him ankle-deep in one of North Carolina’s famous hog waste lagoons. Still, I can live with things as they are.
The quick disposing of the body would be suspicious if there weren’t so many people involved. But the chances of a conspiracy on that scale not coming apart in short order are miniscule. However, stand by to hear about the ‘ringer’ we planted and killed in 5…4…3….
Finally, This may not really be all that important. We may yet discover that all we’ve done is trade Kim Il-Sung for Kim Jong-Il.
I tend to agree with PFP: a conspiracy of this type, involving so many people, would be very difficult to hold together. Time will tell.
Still, I would have preferred that they brought the body to the US, if only for additional forensic analysis to confirm (for the more suspicious of us) that it was in fact OBL that they killed. (And seeing his head on a pike wouldn’t be all bad, either!) I don’t understand the rush to pander to Muslim “custom”, especially in something on this.
Jaded Libertarian.
OBL has been at war with the United States (and the West generally) for many years.
He should have been killed back in the 1990s – but Clinton put so many conditions on things that it made it almost impossible.
The man was killed a firefight (not by a missile fired from a drone – Obama’s normal method) after being given a chance to surrender. Actually he could have had a “fair trial” if he had wanted one (he did have many years to surrender, as well as the last chance before he was shot).
In war one kills the enemy – or is killed by them. There is no “fair trial” – 9/11 (and the other attacks) were not some matter of parking next to a fire hydrant (or other such) they were acts of WAR.
I am totally AGAINST “nation building” (whether in Afghanistan or Iraq) I would bring all forces home.
But if someone says “I am at war with you” and ACTS ON THAT, then I am in favour of killing them.
Sadly you remind me of the “libertarian left” – people who treat ENEMIES (such as OBL) as if they were just “criminals” who can be put into the criminal justice system.
Nations (tribes – whatever) do matter, if people say they are your enemies then TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD and act against them, or they will DEFEAT you.
This was not some “just words” thing (like the hispanic children in Tucson – responding to the brainwashing of their death-to-America education [ironically paid for by Arizonia taxpayers – for the schools that do the damage are government schools] by rioting and chanting their antiAmerican slogans) OBL had gone far beyond words of war.
Bin Laden waged war (he did not just talk about it) – he was an ENEMY not a “criminal”.
Contrary to what the “libertarian left” believe – nations do matter, as do cutures and civilizations.
Bin Laden was an enemy of the nation of America, an enemy of Christian (indeed any nonMuslim) culture, and an enemy of Western civilization. “Tolerance” can not be extended to those who openly want to kill or enslave all those who do not share their religion – and ACT ON THEIR WORDS.
He could not be judged within the system – because he was outside the system, he belonged to a different side.
The side of Islamism.
If you had been in Arabia in the late 500’s would you have treated Muhammed as just some desert bandit?
Someone to be dealt with by the courts?
Actually that is the way the Christian, Jewish (and other) cultures in Arabia did try and treat Muhammed – as a bandit, as a criminal to be dealt with as a law and order problem (at least that is how they tried to deal with him – till it was much too late).
That is how he and his followers were able to EXTERMINATE these cutures – to replace them with his own.
Manual II.
Yes much of what you report, I watched on Indian English language television (NDTV) early this morning.
The Indians (for obvious reasons) pay close attention to the Islamic world – and were quick to point out that OBL was not living in some cave, but in a big private estate quite close to a Pakistani military college (in a high security area).
As for the BBC……
Mr Frank Gardener was shot by an Islamic terrorist – but his mind continues to make excuses for them.
It is much the same with most of the “mainstream media” (which is why I avoid them).
For example, several CBS journalists were threatened (with various horrible things) by the “democracy protestors” in Egypt (Katie C. went home in fear) and one CBS journalist (Laura Logan) was subjected to a mass sex attack whilst the crowd chanted “Jew, Jew” (the lady is not in fact Jewish).
Yet CBS (like the rest of the msm) continues to broadcast that the “democracy activists” are nice and cute, and talk about the “Arab spring” (and on and on).
The “liberal” mind (like the “libertarian left” mind) is something I do not understand.
It used to be said that a “conservative is a liberal who has been mugged” – but even being mugged (or shot – or raped) seems to have no effect in removing “liberal” delusions.
I do not know if it is because “liberals” (I keep using scare quotes because they are “liberal” in no sense that someone like Gladstone would have recognised) hate the West and want it (us) to be exterminated and/or enslaved – or whether they are simply unable to see a “clear and present danger” (even when they are attacked be it).
It is all rather odd.
I’m not sure which is worse – the forelock-tugging sycophancy of the Royal Wedding coverage or the sneering scepticism like this.
Funny, but the weekend before the wedding I was listening to the BBC World Service, and I thought they were propagandizing for republicanism. I don’t know where they dug up some person to argue that the media coverage in the US was all manufactured and phony. I happen not to be interested in celebrity gossip, but a lot of pepole in the US do, and the assertion that US interest wasn’t genuine was nonsense. But it fit the narrative the BBC wanted to present.
The incompetent and lazy Bush allowed Bin Laden to escape in 2002, most likely so he could sell his socialist expansion of the US Government into Iraq.
Twas the Saudi-lover Bush who evacuated Bin Lid’s wretched family after 9/11.
The world’s stupidest and most arrogant man, Alan Greenspan, will hopefully soon join Bin Laden in death.
There’s no such thing as hell, though. Nietczhe’s Eternal Return is most likely what happens after death.
Gary, still smarting about your views on marriage? Get any last night?
It’s always nice to be able to arrest people and present them to the relevant court. And I’m not completely positive but I think there was a warrant for UBL’s arrest issued by a civilian court in the US. To me, that’s the gold standard of what legitimizes an attempt to reduce him to custody.[1]
The problem arises when a person to be arrested won’t come quietly. IMHO it’s perfectly legitimate to use force to effect an arrest when resistance is offered, and to use deadly force to overcome a deadly force threat by a would-be arrestee.
BTW, Gary, I’m the bitter divorced guy here. This stealing-my-gig nonsense has to stop.
[1] not that this is the only way. Read the Fourth Amendment carefully.
Screw Bin Laden. Bullet in the head, feed him to the fishes. Repeat as needed for Gaddafi, Assad, Chavez and the NorK Kims.
~~~~~~Na na na na~~~~~~
~~~~~~Na na na na~~~~~~
~~~~~~Hey hey hey~~~~~~
~~~~~~Goodbye~~~~~~~~
Repeat ad nauseam, or untill all the terrorists and their supporters are dead.
I think I’ll have a glass of single malt.
To add to comment by Sunfish:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/05/killing-osama-was-it-legal.html
Sunfish, if the newspaper reports are to be believed they had no intention of arresting him. It was a hit squad they sent out there.
It seems the local tide of opinion is against me on this one and that’s fine. I don’t believe in extra-judicial punishment. I also do not buy the “this is war” argument – we are not at war with Pakistan. At best you can argue this was a collaborative police action – which brings us back to the illegitimacy of deliberate assassination.
The only time I believe in the use of force is when someone is directly threatening you in a very immediate fashion – or possibly execution after a fair trial. I’m not convinced by what I have read that this meets either definition.
JadedLibertarian:
Guilt is irrelevant, and “extra-judicial punishment” does not apply. Bin Laden was not killed because he was accused of a crime, he was killed because he was an enemy combatant engaged in combat. No principle of justice or law has been violated.
Is burial at sea in keeping with Islamic sensibilities anyway? I’m no expert but I do vaguely remember something about having their heads pointed towards mecca, a bit difficult if he’s swirling around in the drink.
Jaded, I understand and respect your opinion (really) and I really do hope you do not take offence at what I now write… but you have more or less summed up when I hesitate to use the label ‘libertarian’ any more and why what was once ‘Libertarian Samizdata’ is now just ‘Samizdata.net’…
…to put it bluntly if orthodox libertarianism cannot get its mind around why talk of ‘trials’ and squeamishness over killing a self proclaimed mass murderer like Osama Bin Laden (Osama Bin Laden fer Christ’s sake!) is not indicative of a suicidally naive world view, then I don’t know what is.
War does not just happen between states, it also happens between societies. We are at war even if you cannot see that and when it comes to war, it does not take two to tango… just one.
They went in and some SEAL killed the fucker with a shot to the head. The empty 5.56 case should be plated in gold and on put on display because never has tax money been better spent.
So, he sleeps with the fishes. Now is that the Chicago way, or what?
Best read on twitter so far: “It takes a very special sort of bastard to get done in by a Nobel Peace prizewinner”.
I dunno if I qualify as a Left Libertarian in Paul’s perspective. I think nations are tiresome and wish they would just go away. (By “nations”, I tend to mean things like airport security, “progressive” constitutions, immigration forms, flags, royal families, and the like). However, since they don’t, and there are various evil lunatics out to get me on the basis of my presumed “membership” of one or other of these nation things, I’m quite happy to hear about one of these evil lunatics being taken out, at no cost or inconvenience to myself, and suitably grateful to those who do the taking out.
Seems a bit obvious, really.
Ecks, if the Big Sammy is NOT dead, then he’ll just turn up with another video, and talk about how his lookalike is assured a place in Paradise for taking a bullet meant for him. However, not everything is a conspiracy. I am glad he’s not around any more- but Islamic websites are already calling him a martyr! THAT is bad news!
I would have dressed him up like a 6-yr old girl, and let the Prophet get nasty on his a**.
I suspect that, when OBL gets where he is going, he’ll get 72 perpetually-renewing virgins – and the most attractive of them will look and sound like Helen Thomas currently does …
One thing that seemed noticeably absent from the sycophantic press coverage was the fact that the core information that lead to the raid was obtained by, shall we say, non conventional interview techniques, or so I hear.
The big talk is that since Obama got him, he is a certainty for re-election. But it seems to me that this thing proves all the anti “torture” guys, Obama being the chief of self righteousness, have rather a lot of egg on their face.
I thought all the experts assured us that “torture” never produces useful information?
Indeed, given the current state of affairs I would be inclined to agree with you. The world is a violent place, run by violent men who do violent things. Trying to partake in the world system as it stands whilst eschewing violence is practically a contradiction in terms.
This serves to highlight the problem with “nations” as they exist rather than adopting of non-violence in and of itself though.
My solution (and I suspect it will never happen but those are the breaks) would be to dissolve nations in the political sense while retaining them in the geographic and cultural sense. Nations would be replaced with city states, armies with militias.
Once the country was
A) No longer capable of striking beyond its borders and
B) Absolutely armed to the teeth within its own borders
I think we could safely pull up the drawbridge and let the rest of the world get on with it. We don’t need to play the world’s game.
We can take our ball and go home…..
I should also add that even without adopting a city state model both Costa Rica and Switzerland do very well out of a non-interventionist and non-militarist stance.
The best thing to do with the Osama’s of the world is not to hunt them down and kill them, it is to have nothing whatsoever to do with them in the first place.
You could argue quite legitimately that particular cat was most thoroughly out of the bag and he needed to be “dealt with”. But sooner or later the cycle will have to be broken.
Gone to Hell Konjugation:
Osama Bin Laden
Os Bin La
OsB L
SoB L
S.o.B.L.
S.o.B. now leveled to fish ground zero forever, but
the sharks are throwing up.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5143/5682436044_59948f3a6b.jpg
Trouble with that theory is as I said, when it comes to war, and violence generally, it does not take two to tango, just one. In a globalised world, if a globalised enemy, perhaps even a non-state based enemy, keeps sending people to blow themselves up on your trains and hijack your aircraft, you either surrender or you find yourself having to fight a war with global distances involved (i.e. you find yourself in need of bombers and refuelling aircraft and SpecOps teams and aircraft carriers) rather than just defending ‘your’ particular parish by shooting out of your living room window in good “mind your own business” libertarian fashion…
That is why I am a minarchist, not an anarchist.
But yes, I agree that a foreign policy somewhat more akin to that of Switzerland is preferable to one of the USA or UK, but of course we are a happy juncture in world affairs that makes that possible… but these things change… in 1940, the Swiss (and Swedish) foreign policy of non-intervention amounted to tacit support for Nazi Germany (ie. A Bad Thing), whereas now it makes rather more sense.
Ah but Perry, surely this all boils down to the “Would you rather be safe or free?” question.
If we had a non-interventionist, non-militarised, liberty-oriented society then we would be free. We would not be safe in as much as people could indeed still attack us.
But given a distributed militia and a hardy people, I think it almost impossible that they could actually defeat us. The point is not to make yourself impossible to attack, it is to make it bother than it can possibly be worth.
However, by creating a massive military machine with which to reach out and attack the miscreants on their own soil (and the accompanying taxes and increase in the size of the government) we end up trading our freedom for safety.
And since we still have bombs going off in London every couple of years, it hasn’t even made us safe.
Seems like a poor trade to me.
False dichotomy as one is never entirely free or entirely safe, so you need to aspire get as much of both as possible. And I am not free at all if some fucker blows me up going to work on the Tube.
Well yeah, that is great but my point is that you only stay free if you have the means to defend yourself from extended threats. And if you are, say, on the border of somewhere like Russia…
… then you can indeed be utterly and completely crushed, your property collectivised and anyone who resists either shot or sent to Siberia unless you have access to a network of alliances that perhaps raises the cost of attacking you to the point whoever is in the Kremlin feels it is not worth the risk.
Sure, I am all for a rather less interventionist foreign policy and lunatic ‘nation building’, particularly if you have won the geographic lottery and so do not find yourself next door to one of the world’s more psychotic nation-states or religions… but some problems are going to find you anyway if you actually intend to be part of a globalised networked and hopefully free trading world.
The current approach seems rather akin to seeking after something never obtained, spurred on by the fear of a never realised alternative. Militarism has never resulted in peace, and an well armed and free citizenry who mind their own business have never been conquered.
Or in other words, Jam tomorrow and Jam yesterday but never Jam today.
If you give me a .357 Magnum, I will take care of my family’s security. If every other father and husband in the land did the same, I think we’d get on just fine.
JadedLibertarian
“I think we could safely pull up the drawbridge and let the rest of the world get on with it. We don’t need to play the world’s game.”
That won’t do any good when the enemy is already within the keep!
“But given a distributed militia and a hardy people, I think it almost impossible that they could actually defeat us. The point is not to make yourself impossible to attack, it is to make it bother than it can possibly be worth.”
If we were an easily defendable country like Switzerland, with little strategic value, then perhaps, if we were faced by a rational enemy. But the jihadis wish to impose on the West a clone of their disfunctional, backward and contemptible society.
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
unless you have access to a network of alliances that perhaps raises the cost of attacking you to the point whoever is in the Kremlin feels it is not worth the risk.
Perry, how about stockpiling CBRN weapons in a given network of private military corps. and sufficiently wealthy militias? Wouldn’t that offer a better deterrent than a standing national army?
If you give me a .357 Magnum, I will take care of my family’s security. If every other father and husband in the land did the same, I think we’d get on just fine.
This is but one example and not even the worst, but I don’t think I’ve ever read socio-political theorizing that was predicated on so many fantastical conditionals and unrealistic, nay, anti-realistic assertions.
Hope I never become that jaded.
@ jdm
I’m all for criticism old boy, but try at least to broach what you think is an acceptable alternative.
Really? Napoleon rolled over Switzerland (and a great many other places) which had long since given up their external military tradition as mercenary-of-choice for Europe… fact is any sufficiently ruthless state would have little trouble crushing a people who lacked a real army.
One does not have to support militarism to support the idea that a military is a prerequisite to survival to any society with any notion of seriously participating in an extended globalised environment.
Thing is, I have no intention of ‘minding my own business’… indeed as I am an advocate for global free trade, how could I?
I do not accept any nation has any right to stop me trading with anyone I wish to trade with if they also wish to trade with me… and that is bound to make some people unhappy… and chances are that will make them unhappy with not just me but with the entire cosmopolitan free associating society I would like to think I come from.
Now I am quite prepared to accept that the current model of nation-state-with-an army/navy/airforce is by no means the only way to secure order (and indeed in many ways very different approaches could well work better and place the costs of military operations more squarely on those who need them, such as Letters of Marque, PMCs, etc etc).
I am enthusiastically in favour of an armed population and a critical mass of stoutly pro-liberty people with weapons readily to hand is an outstanding discouragement to the domestic encroachments of a governing class and the casual depredations of would be later-day ‘vikings’…
…but it is quite unrealistic as a solution to either globalised terrorisst who blow themselves up to cause massed civilian deaths in veneration of some dark ages pederast who wrote some book because of voices in his head or 10,000 Soviet T-62s coming through the Fulda Gap… and alas those kind of threats will probably never entirely disappear.
That may well be a viable solution to threats from hostile nations-states.
JL, The snark is strong in the morning. Sorry about that. It was uncalled for.
@ jdm
No worries. I can appreciate where the criticism was coming from.
I’m in the unfortunate position that I firmly believe it is immoral to encroach on the free choices of good men. Balanced against this is the ever present demands of A) Those who find freedom terrifying and B) Those who find small governments an opportunity for conquest. I find myself doubting that what I firmly believe to be moral will ever actually come about – both because of cowardice on the part of the general population, and because of opportunism on the part of our enemies.
This is where the “jaded” part comes from 😉
Jaded: And that has a great deal to do with why I (and I presume fellow editor Perry) have never gone to the full anarchist position. The world has changed drastically since Murray wrote some of his ideas on anarchist defense and I fear he has been left behind.
A smart militia of individuals does not really have much of a chance these days against a trained and technological force, unless they are satisfied with the idea of trading their lives at horrendous ratios against the attacker. If you have a culture in which human life has little value or in which death means instant heaven, you might manage it. In most civilizations where Libertarian ideas are likely to take hold these suicidal methods are unlikely to be viable.
Remember what the butchers bill was in Somalia: roughly a thousand Somalis dead and wounded to kill a handful of trained US soldiers. Not a good trade if life has any meaning to you.
No point in going through life feeling jaded, JL. The world (by which I mostly mean human nature) is what it is, and it is not going to change, not fundamentally. All we can do is try to find realistic solutions to real problems, while doing our best to adhere to our values. OBL having been shot in the head is a realistic solution to a real problem, and I see no fundamental humanistic values having been violated by that.
In addition to being simply jaded, or adopting a “best that can be done in the situation” approach, there is also secret door number 3 which is what I choose. Rather than be willing to compromise on my principles, I instead aim to opt out of the world system altogether.
I believe in minding my own business. The problem with applying this as a national strategy is when you have to deal with people who refuse to mind theirs.
But at the individual level this is not so much of a problem – one can simply refuse to associate with people who bring things into your life that you do not want.
This is what I aim for. Increasingly as time passes I structure my life in such a way as to have as little to do with the “world system” as possible, and ensuring the things which come into my life are the things I want.
My long term aim is to opt out of “society” almost completely. I’ll mind my business, and I’ll do my best to help the rest of the world mind theirs.
I’m not concerned about changing nations any more. If Britain becomes more liberty oriented, then great.
But I no longer think it is for me to try and bring it about.
Well, good luck with that JL:-)
Not merely “jaded” but also “fatalistic”, huh?
I also agree that, the world being what it is, nations need military forces. The problem I have (in the US, anyway) is how those forces are structured. We currently have approximately 1.5 million people on active duty (and another million or so in the reserves), and our total military expenditures are greater than the combined military expenditures of the next 15 largest militaries (many of which are our [nominal] allies). That’s not only absurd, it’s obscene.
The Founders wisely feared a large standing army, which is why it’s severely constrained* by the Constitution. And whatever the rationale may have been during the mid-20th century there is no justification for one now; it’s merely an invitation to adventurism around the world. All we truly need is a robust Air Force which can deploy “smart” weapons wherever needed, a Navy to protect the borders from seaborne invasion, and small, highly skilled special forces units (i.e., the Marines and Seals) to put “boots on the ground” in very specialized situations (such as the assassination of Osama bin Laden). Eliminate the standing army, close all foreign military bases (granted, it will take some time to extract ourselves from Korea and the middle east, but it should begin now), and consolidate our forces into a single (managable) integrated command structure (to minimize the inter-service rivalries).
If we need to project force, it should be through missile strikes and bombing runs. Every nation should clearly understand that if it attacks us it will suffer serious retaliation and massive destruction. I have no concern about “collateral damage” or civilian casualties; they’re responsible for their own government. Nor have I any concern about rebuilding the vanquished; instead, I would demand war reparations to cover our costs.
The only use of ground troops should be for “surgical” strikes of very limited duration. No “nation-building”, and no occupation (it would be unnecessary, as the infrastructure would be destroyed anyway). Eliminate the large standing army, and restructure the military as a purely defensive (albeit extremely potent) force, and we solve an entire litany of problems. It would save massive amounts of money, minimize our friction with other nations, and most importantly it would severly limit the ability of politicians to use the military for inappropriate purposes (foreign interventionism, nation-building, “humanitarian” assistance, etc.).
Which, of course, is precisely why it will never happen.
* Appropriations for maintaining an army are limited to two years, whereas there is no such limitation on funding a navy.
I would pretty much agree with all of that, Laird.
“I have no concern about “collateral damage” or civilian casualties; they’re responsible for their own government.”
If only they were.
News from Barmilandia: the entire Latin American left are twisting themselves in knots trying to find something to publicly dislike about OBL’s death. The fact that half of Pakistan wasn’t trashed in the process is making it really hard for them. The resulting squirming is a joy to behold.
Ultimately, Endivio, they are. And if they suffer their country to attack the US they should likewise suffer the consequences. I’m not advocating the intentional targeting of noncombatants, merely saying that I would lose no sleep over any who are harmed in the retaliation.
We’d only need to do it once or twice for the message to sink in.
Sounds like what Cactus Ed said about the death penalty: it would be more effective of we executed an innocent man every now and then, just to keep people guessing.
True, except for the inconvenient detail that they’re not innocent.
Who’s not innocent? The bystanders?
I don’t know about you, but I’d hate to be on the hook for the words and acts of the amoral anal haberdashers that my state has sent to the senate and to 1600 Pennsylvania. Unless you’re suggesting that my failure to engage in armed rebellion makes us complicit.
I don’t like the door opened by that logic.
You might not like that door, Sunfish, but as a society we are entirely culpable for the government we have. No government can survive without the tacit support (or at least blasé indifference) of a large majority of the populace. And if that government attacks someone else we shouldn’t be surprised if some of us get caught in the backlash.
Read carefully what I wrote. I did not advocate active targeting of civilian populations. I merely said that if we are attacked, the response should be severe (wholly dis-proportionate; full-out war until unconditional surrender is achieved), and the possibility of collateral damage, while unfortunate, would not be any reason for restraint. Furthermore, I proposed a complete restructuring of our military into a purely defensive force, to eliminate the possibility of our initiation of aggression. Don’t seek war, but if we’re in it the gloves come off and the brass knuckles go on. Without apology.
Alisa, yer gonna lose your Secret Libertarian Decoder Ring if you don’t quit with the realism…
I never wear rings, Kim:-)
The thing with realism is that if you show me a thousand people, I will show you a thousand different perceptions of reality. I believe yours and mine are pretty close, but I doubt they are identical.