It is generally rightful to come to forceful defence of an innocent party against aggression. Although the rescuer initiates violence nominally, it is rightful. That extends to governments when they have a proper popular mandate.
It is generally rightful to protect life or property regardless of jurisdiction. Thus a government acting in defense of its citizen's property on foreign soil is acting rightfully if it has the mandate to spend the resource.
A government with a proper mandate can be proactive in preempting aggression before there is a tangible threat, short of initiating aggression. For example, a government anticipating a future threat from country X may take steps that strengthen country Y because Y is an adversary of X.
A distinction should be made between dealing with a country that can be expected to act in accordance with international law (e.g. that subscribes to non-aggression principles similar to what I outlined), and a rogue country. Preemptive aggression against a rogue country can be justified under some circumstances.
I realize that these theses can easily fill multiple threads, and I fully intend to present them under Defense of Liberty label at some point.
> That may be too theoretical for this long thread, but this is what I think, in brief:
Yes, this is a very complex issue which requires a far deeper examination than it has received.
> It is generally rightful to come to forceful defence of an innocent party against aggression. Although the rescuer initiates violence nominally, it is rightful. That extends to governments when they have a proper popular mandate.
And this is the rub as far as I am concerned. I am not sure that our government has the "proper popular mandate," which would involve the people voluntarily funding operations about which they have forthright information. Somehow I can't see the American public voluntarily approving and funding the Salvadorean death squads which the government took it upon itself to fund and train.
There is obviously much more to say on the subject. Suffice it to say that I am in agreement with you to a significant degree and there are areas in which we can probably clarify our thinking.
> I realize that these theses can easily fill multiple threads, and I fully intend to present them under Defense of Liberty label at some point.
I noticed in your DoL thread that you are looking for some assistance. I have some ideas which may or may not be of assistance, let me know if you'd like to discuss them.
JD