Posted on 10/17/2005 12:44:25 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
Do You Believe in War?
By J. Neil Schulman
Recently my participation in an IMDb message-board discussion of an article Brad Linaweaver and I wrote regarding the movie Flightplan -- a recent feature film we were identifying as anti-war propaganda -- expanded to general discussions of terrorism, bigotry, and war.As a libertarian who has spent most of his career attacking collectivism of all sorts, I found myself in the odd position of having to explain why it's not bigotry to blame Muslims for 9/11, why a global jihad against the West is several orders of magnitude more of a national threat than Timothy McVeigh's 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, and - most surprisingly - why even though the enemy doesn't wear uniforms or display a home base, this is a real war.
The premise of most of the disagreements I was encountering was that since no state or axis of states was responsible for such events as the attacks of 9/11/2001 in the United States, 3/11/2004 in Madrid, 7/7/2005 in London, or 10/1/2005 in Bali, it is racist, bigoted, and imperialistic to blame Muslims or Arabs for these attacks, and to respond with military force in the Middle East.
Before I could even argue that war is by nature collectivistic in its strategy and tactics -- before I could argue that we were in a non-traditional form of war but a war nonetheless - I found myself having to defeat arguments that eliminate the possible targeting of an enemy in any war.
L. Neil Smith, in his brilliant 1980 novel, The Probability Broach, portrays an alternate-history Congressional floor debate in which untempered individualism is taken to its logical conclusion. The suggestion that a military invasion of America by a foreign power should be opposed by a declaration of war and raising an army is countered by the argument that since the arriving soldiers have the individual right to keep and bear arms, and Congress has no right to deny visitors from disembarking on private property, that the landing of a foreign army on our shores does not justify a national defense. Local militia should protect their own property from any mischief the soldiers might cause. The argument wins the day and Congress adjourns.
In Smith's alternate history, local militia turn out to be sufficiently well-regulated to resist such a foreign invasion - never mind that they don't have a tank corps, an air force, or naval power -- and everyone lives happily ever after through many sequels.
Now, I'm not going to argue with my old friend that if the American Revolution had unfolded differently we might be living in an unrecognizable world which offers different choices.
Still, in the world where we actually live, libertarians can't ignore that people often hide their individual identities behind the common identity of a collective - voluntarily or not -- and such collectives act in concert on the basis of many affiliations including common language, common ethnicity, and common beliefs.
To assert that an individual must deal with such collectives-states, religions, parties, and movements - in the same way we deal with individuals, denies the reality that we may only deal with others as individuals when the other individuals allow themselves to be individually visible. When they merge their individual identities into a collective identity, the Law of Identity requires us to deal with the collective.
Traditional war was "trinitarian," fought between unified collectives of Government, Nation, and Army. We knew the enemy by their uniforms, their command structures, their home bases.
When the Japanese attacked the United States military bases at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941, they came in their own ships and airplanes, wore uniforms, and had trained together. If it had not been for a slow typist at the Japanese embassy, a Japanese declaration of war would have been delivered to our Secretary of State prior to the commencement of hostilities
When Muslim Jihadis attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, they pretended to be civilian passengers in order to hijack our commercial passenger jetliners and use them as guided missiles, but they shared common beliefs and goals, had trained together, and coordinated their attacks.
That those Muslim soldiers - only later identified as Al Qaeda by tracing their movements -- struck without warning in a true sneak attack, hid behind civilian clothing, and never identified their organization as the source of the attack, does not change their collective identity as a militarized unit operating as part of a worldwide armed force.
In a conflict where the enemy blends into the civilian population, operates as independent cells pledged to a common cause, and targets innocent civilians as its primary strategy, we must identify the enemy not by the old trinity of Government, Nation, and Army but by a new trinity: Ideology, Sponsors, and Mission.
If those who attack us have a common set of beliefs that motivates their attacks, have common sponsors who enable their attacks, and have a common goal that unifies their attacks, we have enough of an identification to certify an enemy and wage war to disrupt their ability to attack us.
That is what the United States invasion to liberate Afghanistan from the Taliban, and the United States invasion to liberate Iraq from the Ba'athists, has done. The dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq lent aid, comfort, and safe haven to jihadists engaged in a globally unified campaign to destroy the modern, secular, and Judeo-Christian world. The attacks were on their sponsors.
That's a real - and justifiable - defensive war.
J. Neil Schulman is twice winner of the Prometheus Award for his novels Alongside Night and The Rainbow Cadenza. His personal website is at The World According to J. Neil Schulman.
You can't argue with the "Peace at any price crowd".
A liberal recently explained to me that it would have saved millions of lives and billions of dollars if we had supplied the nazis with a more humane way of exterminating the Jews and others. There's really not much you can do with that kind of mindset.
I believe in war. I was in one back in 1990-1991. So I know it's real.
The more important question is if war believes in you.
Sorry, those were not "soldiers" by any stretch of the word. Terrorists, criminals, madmen, psychotic assassins, yes, but not soldiers.
In a conflict where the enemy blends into the civilian population, operates as independent cells pledged to a common cause, and targets innocent civilians as its primary strategy, we must identify the enemy not by the old trinity of Government, Nation, and Army but by a new trinity: Ideology, Sponsors, and Mission.
Excellent piece.
…but not soldiers.
Yes. Prudent, moderate military action has ended all sorts of tyranny, oppression, and injustice all over the world.
The anti-war movement is an unfortunate outgrowth of the socialists plan for converting free people to docile sheep.
Violent men do not desist by any other means. Ask 6 million European Jews - oh, too late.
I remember this one high-ranking military individual said (in the 70s) the way to solve the middle east problem is intermarriage. If the arabs and jews would be compelled to marry each other, then there wouldn't be a middle east problem. Simplistic solution for a simplistic mind.
L Neil Smith is NOT a "Peace at any price" liberal. He would gladly kill you if you "initiated force" against him, his family, his property or, if he could get away with it, his principles.
Unfortunately, he is against any sort of collectivization. He finds the military, is as much as that it funded by involuntary taxes to be a horror. Wouldn't have any problems it it was run as a not-for-profit by donations, bake sales, etc.
He just doesn't live in the real world. If you read The Probability Broach, its is a very nice place, but not very real.
Worked for Alexander the Great. Sort of. Had to conquer the area first, though. Then his empire disappeared in an enormous civil war after he died. But it worked. Sort of.
Mafia rank and file are called "soldiers", but are they, really? Not all soldiers have to be in organized units, fight for a good cause, or even wear a standard uniform, but a member of a criminal conspiracy is just what the name implies, a criminal. Calling a terrorist "soldier" just because the MSM won't call them by their proper name(s) is just letting the MSM off easy.
Why, yes. There are well documented incidents all through history.
bttt
That aside, I do believe in war, but more importantly, I know it believes in me.
Then we are not at war. 9/11 was merely a crime requiring a law enforcement response. The UN should handle it.
Right?
Democracy is....and sometimes you have to fight for it!
This person was not being facetious? The destruction of Nazi Germany is always held up as the great justifying event for which we should eternally thank liberals.
Mafia rank and file are called "soldiers", but are they, really
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.