Posted on 01/17/2010 3:37:59 AM PST by plsjr
Bell: We think one of the main challenges facing America today is the growth of the so-called pro-military conservative movement. We believe the movement almost purposefully confuses people about Jeffersonian classical liberal thought and is far more challenging to the growing Misesian free-market ideology than the Democrats. Agree? Disagree?
Woods: I think they're both pretty awful. I [was] one of these "the Pentagon can do no wrong" conservatives until I realized a few things: (1) the contradiction at work in my holding up this one government institution as beyond reproach; (2) the fact that government lies surrounding foreign policy are especially egregious and embarrassing, if we're going to be honest about it; (3) I would have had a field day if the Soviet Union had tried to pull off some of these lies, but when it's "my" government I instead searched around for supporting evidence to back up the lies; (4) no supporter of the free market can look at military procurement and the military-industrial complex in any detail (and I am confident most conservatives haven't) without recoiling in utter disgust. And that's not to mention the unspeakable and completely avoidable devastation and loss of life wrought by this wing of the government in adventures that had more to do with fueling imperial ambition than with actually defending the country. No conservative, especially those who lecture the world about moral relativism, can support Bill Clinton's sanctions on Iraq, for example. Sanctions always hurt only the subject population. Everyone knows that. A century ago the policy would have been condemned as an act of barbarism. ... This is totally unknown to American conservatives today, who think it's "liberal" to be antiwar or to consider it overkill to spend more on so-called "defense" than the next several dozen countries put together.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybell.com ...
I'm posting this to solicit FReepers' views on the Libertarian anti-military mindset. In particular, why they don't recognize or acknowledge there are real threats that require a well supported organized force to defend the nation.
(I thought about following my statement with "to stand for what is right", but I've seen how evil has placed and twisted those in positions of using those forces capriciously - to put it kindly).
I believe the loss of a moral foundation in the U.S. has allowed the tools of state to be bent to evil purpose at least as far back as the turn of the century.
Having been in the military effectively all my life, I know my views are biased in support of the good-patriotic use of our forces. However, the negative comments made about the wastefulness and evil use of military-industrial complex by our government (by the executive AND legislative branches: e.g., adventurism, social experiments, perquisites, and pork) have truth in them.
Your thoughts?
(I mean 1900 when I say ‘turn of the century’... showing my age.)
Sorry, I stop reading whenever I see ‘everybody knows that...’ Such a statement betrays intellectual weakness. Sounds like my 31-yr old nephew whose mom and dad had to kick out of their basement.
Libertarianism, taken to it’s ideological extreme, is really just anarchy.
It a distrust of all forms of power. Military, like the police, are places where there is a concentration of power.
The problem with the libertarian mentality is that we live in the real world, not some fantasy utopia. Of course concentrations of power is bad, given the human tendency to abuse it, but does the libertarian really believe without the police or the military power will no longer by concentrated? No, instead it will just be concentrated in the hand of the most ruthless amongst us.
That’s the fallen world we live in.
Life would be simple if we could just have a couple of ideological rules and live by them, the real world is much more complicated than that.
Too often , our Miltary is used for all the wrong reasons.
A perfect example is Hati.
Obama, as CIC sends our Military to Hati....thugs will undoubtabley be shot at some point .
It IS Gonna Happen!...You heard it here first .
The inexperienced CIC will burn the Troops or implement new rules of engagement(no live rounds , no bayonettes.)
This Hati relief effort should be staffed by Obama`s New National Civilian Security Force, or what ever it is called.
Keep our Military out of civilian relief efforts. Keep them Locked and Loaded and ready to do the Work of Warriors....Oh and no blue helmets either.
“I’m posting this to solicit FReepers’ views on the Libertarian anti-military mindset. In particular, why they don’t recognize or acknowledge there are real threats that require a well supported organized force to defend the nation.”
Hardcore Libertarians do not believe in borders or nations.
The libertarian movement, like so many institutions, has been infiltrated by the communists, fascists and Marxists.
When younger, I dabbled in the local libertarian group, looking for a political home. I liked their stance on private property because our entire Constitution revolved around the concept of individual rights based on private property - the right to individual speech, worship, bearing arms, all your rights in that private property, etc.
The big appeal for me with the libertarians was their stance on defense of private property. As I understood it, you attack my private property, prepare for an all-out assault on you and everything you own.
If 9-11 isn’t an attack on private property, then I don’t know what is. The reaction of every libertarian should be “Let’s go kick butt.” And if it involved military adventures in foreign countries, so be it. The goal should be to punish the attackers so severely that foreboding songs will be written and sung for generations by the survivors of these attackers and their progeny, with a warning to never attack America again.
Instead, we get weak-kneed wailings and attacks on America from a bunch of Marxist maggots claiming to be libertarians.
It’s communist infiltration. That’s the answer. And throw in the syphilitic Jim Jones “free” love advocates as infiltrators, too.
The libertarian movement, like so many institutions, has been infiltrated by the communists, fascists and Marxists.
When younger, I dabbled in the local libertarian group, looking for a political home. I liked their stance on private property because our entire Constitution revolved around the concept of individual rights based on private property - the right to individual speech, worship, bearing arms, all your rights in that private property, etc.
The big appeal for me with the libertarians was their stance on defense of private property. As I understood it, you attack my private property, prepare for an all-out assault on you and everything you own.
If 9-11 isn’t an attack on private property, then I don’t know what is. The reaction of every libertarian should be “Let’s go kick butt.” And if it involved military adventures in foreign countries, so be it. The goal should be to punish the attackers so severely that foreboding songs will be written and sung for generations by the survivors of these attackers and their progeny, with a warning to never attack America again.
Instead, we get weak-kneed wailings and attacks on America from a bunch of Marxist maggots claiming to be libertarians.
It’s communist infiltration. That’s the answer. And throw in the syphilitic Jim Jones “free” love advocates as infiltrators, too.
If these guys actually knew what they were talking about, they'd know that Jefferson actually had little sympathy for "Misesian free-market ideology." Jefferson was not actually a "capitalist" in the sense that we use the term today, though people often assume that he was. It's because of the erroneous assumption that "libertarianism" and "classical liberalism" are the same. They are not. Libertarianism is something of a perversion of classical liberalism that arose with the Romantic movement in the mid-to-late 19th century.
There is an anti-military mindset within the libertarian movement but it's not universal. I don't know if Woods holds that mindset but I didn't see it in this interview. He seems to speak to how the military is used.
Iraq was a completely different kettle of fish in that Saddam was contained within his own borders and was not a threat to us strategicly, he was definetly a badguy, no doubt, but he wasn't a threat in a strategic sense. Its unknown (to me anyway, if anyone has any information otherwise please link it) if the Iraq War actually saved any lives given the huge loss of civillian life in the attacks themselves, and violence that followed both in terms of Iraqi's and Coalition service people. Again if anyone has any linkable information please do so, I'd be interested to know.
To sum up because this post is getting long, I don't think its that libertarians are anti-military, they are anti-agression (or if you prefer, pro-peace) and would rather trade and be friends with people and influence others through our actions rather than our guns, but have those guns ready in case the other guy doesn't believe the same way.
right - plsjr’s assertion of loss of moral values also supports this.
The balance point is how much a Christian is to be his brother’s keeper.
That assumes a christian nation.
Also raises the question of the best way to achieve the ‘keep’ admonition.
I would have to begin by drawing a hard distinction between Libertarians (Libertarian Party), and civil-libertarianism (the Goldwater wing of the Republican Party). While the two may look similar on the surface, the difference in motive is profound.
The motive underlying Goldwater Republicanism is the preservation of the Constitution, enforcing the separation of powers, and the preservation of natural rights in the face of a run-away federal government. In pursuit of those principles (undeniably conservative), they are often lumped in with the Libertarian Party, whose positions are similar, but for different (anarchist) reasons.
As a Reagan Conservative, I admit a certain alignment with the civil-libertarian cause. After all, Reagan came from the Goldwater wing. Reagan and Goldwater are very similar. While I do not agree with them fully, admitting a necessary involvement in foreign entanglements with regard to our allies in the world, I do see civil-libertarians as the safety valve on the pressure cooker, as it were.
What I believe must invariably be proven in any case of foreign involvement is a precise adherence to Constitutional mandates in regard to war, and a convincing argument toward "Just Cause", in the literal sense. Not only is that the prescription against any American imperialism, it is our responsibility to be sure before committing the blood of our warriors to be shed - putting them in jeopardy for only the most qualified of reasons.
Once committed, one can then prosecute the war with every effort - with minimal rules of engagement, ensuring that our soldiers can operate unfettered, do their job, and come home soon.
While my civil-libertarian friends are unlikely to be pleased with any foreign war, they are likely to be pacified if the above conditions are applied.
Furthermore, I think it necessary to include the civil-libertarian position (as that safety valve) in Conservatism, as their position keeps us honest. If they are not squawking about a war, you can bet that "Just Cause" applies, and that alignment with the law is within an acceptable variance.
That is *not* anti-military (most that I know are stalwart patriots). It is pro-Constitution, and toward the rule of law. And it is the significant difference between Goldwater/Reagan and the NeoCons from the Baker wing (Bush, Bush II, McCain), who threw the Reaganites and civil libertarians under the bus.
I would be interested in knowing more about this group you call “NeoCons from the Baker wing”.
Your analysis on Iraq is factually incorrect on all counts. This is why Libertarians cannot be taken seriously. They always try to twist reality to fit their political dogmas
Why Iraq
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
Total nonsense. Yours is another example of refusing to deal with the facts of the issue in order to cling to a personal political viewpoint. Here is what we did in Iraq.
Why Iraq
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it's diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it's military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It's so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
BINGO!
Nor could we have a three front invasion scenario for Iran from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf...
We are in violent agreement!
;-)
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.