Defense of Liberty: Two Articles On Anti-Terrorist Policy by Peikoff

Released: September 15, 1998

Fanning the Flames of Terrorism
Clinton’s “Anti-Terrorist Policy” Should Target Governments Not Individuals
By Leonard Peikoff and Andrew Lewis

     The recent attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were a bloody reminder of the threat posed by terrorists. Almost all commentators and politicians hailed America’s swift response as a positive step. In fact, however, Clinton’s assault on Osama bin Laden will only encourage the terrorists.
     In recent years, America’s reaction to terrorist acts has been a mixture of cowardly compromise and empty legalistic threats. In the two months prior to the embassy attacks alone, the Clinton Administration made three outstanding concessions. It capitulated to Libya, promising to drop all UN sanctions if it releases the prime suspects in the Lockerbie bombing for trial in the Netherlands under Scottish law. It closed the investigation into TWA 800, leaving forever unresolved the cause of the disaster. It emasculated the investigation of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, because evidence emerged linking the bombing to Iran, whose regime Clinton is now courting.
     By promising only trials and international courts, Clinton has made a mockery of the atrocities. Terrorists have no respect for the rule of law; that is why they are called “terrorists.” Administration officials repeatedly assert that we are engaged in a “war against terrorism.” True — and wars are not fought or won in a courtroom.
     The attacks on Osama bin Laden’s facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan were lauded by many as a welcome change from years of this legalistic claptrap. However, the attacks were deliberately toothless. Clinton aimed at a few peripheral installations, while proudly proclaiming his commitment that no “innocent” working a night shift in the Sudan would die. There are no innocents in a war — and certainly none in a chemical weapons facility. The clear implication is that saving terrorist agents is more important to the President than protecting Americans who will be killed by their weapons. In essence, Clinton has declared “open season” on Americans.
     Most important, Clinton’s attacks diverted attention from the real agents of terrorism. In blaming and targeting a single individual — in insisting that an isolated maniac was responsible and lying to deny that man’s proven connections with Middle East governments — Clinton exonerated all terrorist-sponsoring regimes, including Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, and others. It is not merely that Clinton wanted to avoid offending the Afghani Taliban and the Sudanese government. He wanted to avoid offending any governments involved in terrorism, despite their proven function as protector and sanctioner of the killers. The result: he showed each and every one of these governments that they are safe to sponsor as many bin Ladens as they want.
     Terrorism is a form of war. Evil men such as bin Laden cannot wage it alone. Although bin Laden certainly deserves to die, his capacity to kill and maim is made possible only by the governments that shelter his kind. Only governments have the power to protect terrorists, sponsor or wink at their training camps, and provide or applaud their weapons, transport and all the other support necessary to enter and exit their target countries. Targeting the individual killer leaves the real mass murderer — the terrorist-loving government — unpunished, secure in the knowledge that their victim is too cowardly to retaliate in kind.
     The inevitable result of this policy is exactly what bin Laden has promised: a continuing war against Americans. The bombing of an American restaurant in South Africa a few days later was only the beginning. From Teheran to Tripoli, the governmental sponsors of terrorism will continue to protect the bin Ladens of this world until and unless they are shown that they themselves will suffer massively for doing so.
     The only way to end terrorism is through a policy of real military strikes against the aggressors. If, as the Clinton Administration tells us repeatedly, we are engaged in a war, then let us see a war, fought not with words, but with the full, untrammeled power of our military, including, as and when necessary, the use of our most potent and destructive weapons against the seat of the governments involved.
     The only alternative is the continued slaughter of Americans by terrorist bombs ignited by the cowardice of American policy-makers.

Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. http://www.aynrand.org

Released: September 12, 2001

Fifty Years of Appeasement Led to Black Tuesday
By Leonard Peikoff Download an image of this author for print publication.)-->

       Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the United States. The inevitable climax was the tens of thousands of deaths on September 11, 2001—the blackest day in our history, so far. The Palestinians, among others, responded by dancing in the streets and handing out candy.
       Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower ceded to the Arabs the West's property rights in oil—although that oil properly belonged to those in the West whose science and technology made its discovery and use possible.
       This capitulation was not practical, but philosophical. The Arab dictators were denouncing the wealthy egoistic West. They were crying that the masses of their poor needed our sacrifice; that oil, like all property, is owned collectively, by virtue of birth; and that they knew all this by means of ineffable or otherworldly emotion. Our Presidents had no answer. Implicitly, they were ashamed of the Declaration of Independence. They did not dare to answer aloud that Americans, rightfully, were motivated by the selfish desire to pursue personal happiness in a rich, secular, individualist society.
       The Arabs embodied in extreme form every idea—selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the group—which our universities and churches, and our own political Establishment, had long been preaching as the essence of virtue. When two groups, our leadership and theirs, accept the same basic ideas, the most consistent wins.
       After property came liberty. The Iranian dictator Khomeini threatened with death a British author—and with destruction his American publisher—if they exercised their right to free speech. He explained that the book in question offended the religion of his people. The Bush Administration looked the other way.
       After liberty came American life itself—as in Iran's support of the massacre of our soldiers in Saudi Arabia, and the Afghanistan-based assault on our embassies in East Africa. Again, the American response was unbridled appeasement: a Realpolitikisch desire not to "jeopardize relations" with the aggressor country, covered up by a purely rhetorical vow to punish the guilty, along with an occasional pretend bombing. By now, the world knows that we are indeed a paper tiger.
       We have not only appeased terrorists, we have actively created them. The Reagan Administration—holding that Islamic fundamentalists were our ideological allies in the fight against the atheistic Soviets—poured money and expertise into Afghanistan to create an ever-growing band of terrorists recruited from all over the Mideast. Most of these terrorists knew what to do with their American training; their goal was not to save Afghanistan.
       The final guarantee of American impotence is the bipartisan proclamation that a terrorist is an individual alone responsible for his actions, and that "we must try each before a court of law." This is tantamount, while under a Nazi aerial bombardment, to seeking out and trying the pilots involved while ignoring Hitler and Germany.
       Terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of the governments behind them. Their lethal behavior is that of the regimes that make them possible. Their killings are not crimes, but acts of war. The only proper response to such acts is war in self-defense.
       We do not need more evidence to "pinpoint" the perpetrators of any one of these atrocities, including the latest and most egregious—we already have total certainty with regard to the governments primarily responsible for the repeated slaughter of Americans in recent years. We must now use our unsurpassed military to destroy all branches of the Iranian and Afghani governments, regardless of the suffering and death this will bring to the many innocents caught in the line of fire. We must wipe out the terrorist training camps or sanctuaries, and eliminate any retaliatory military capability—and thereby terrorize and paralyze all the tyrannies watching, who will now know what is in store for them if they choose in any form to attack the United States. That will be the end of the terrorists.
       Our missiles and occupation troops, however, will be effective only if they are preceded by our President's morally righteous statement that we intend hereafter to defend by every means possible each American's right to his property, his liberty, and his secure enjoyment of life here on earth.
       To those who oppose war, I ask: If not now, when? How many more corpses are necessary before this country should take action?
       The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. President Bush must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who seek to kill them.

Leonard Peikoff is the founder of the Ayn Rand Institute in Marina del Rey, California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.     Send Feedback

But the governments that nationalized the oil companies assets were dictatorship and a good argument can be made, particularly in hindsight, that preventing them from doing so would be in the national interest

I'm responding here. I do not wish to have the argument hi-jacked by Rand. You are taking her out of context anyway.

In order for an attack on the dictatorship to be acceptable there has to be 100% agreement that it is a good idea. That is because intervention uses the resources of everyone but provides no benefit for anyone.

You can pretend if you'd like, that a war with some petty dictatorship actually serves the national interests of the U.S. but it's not really true. It *might* serve the national interest of the people suffereing under the dictatorship but you don't seem to be thinking this out.

After you've crushed the dictator and leave, (and it's probably warm and fuzzy to think you could do so without any American casualties) what happens? Do you say; "Good luck and don't create anymore dictatorships or we'll be back again!"

What you are saying is that "national interest" is an excuse that can be used to justify war but you refuse to give it any meaningful definition. In reality you could trade it with "because" and have an equivalent reason to commit acts of aggression. I wish that you'd deal with 119. I believe those 4 points are devestating to your assertions.

If you think that the Rand quote is out of context, you should explain why. I posted the entire article in Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention; it is from Ayn Rand institute and reaches the same conclusions in theory that Peikoff reaches here, and the argumentation in the article is close to what I presented, and relies on Rand, whom it quotes. So do me a favor and explain on that thread where Ayn Rand Insitute quotes Ayn Rand out of context.

Only the decision to delegate matters on national interest to the government needs to be made by the electorate. Each particular decision need not be decided by plebiscite. Even then, 100% is not required. When a government works inside its constitutional perimeter, it does not need to check back for 100% approval. There is much to be argued here theoretically , but not on this thread which is about concrete issue of foregin policy. The notion of universal consent was argued for example, in

(Pursuit of Liberty). No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority. Parts I-II.
(Pursuit of Liberty). No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority. Parts III - VII
(Pursuit of Liberty). No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority. Parts VIII - XIV
(Pursuit of Liberty). No Treason. The Constitution of No Authority. Parts XV - APPENDIX

Not every war with a petty dictatorship serves the national interest. Some do and some don't. What is argued here is that a war on the Arab dictatorships and monarchies that nationalized our oil in the 50's would have been in the national interest, because it would have maintained our economic independence, -- a pretty clear cut case.

I agree with the implications that you make, that after we crush the dictator we can't just leave. In Defense of Liberty: The Contours of Victory I argue for the restoration of the principles of imperialism, and for reopening the lessons of colonialism. Since our security lies in distant lands, we must learn how to subdue and manage these lands.

There are two issues here. A nation is free when it is ruled with the consent of its population and protects individual rights. Broadly speaking, our government does that: it has free and contested elections and has individual rights written in the constitution. Nobody prevented Americans from electing politicians who promise radical tax cuts; the reality is that the politicians who don't, and instead promise expanded government services get more votes. We are a free nation that uses its freedom foolishly. Nevertheless, we definitely qualify to morally fight any war we please on governments that usurp power anywhere; the Defense of Liberty: Just Intervention article explains why.

The second issue is that of national interest. While we morally can fight any war on dictatorial governments, often we shouldn't. Our involvement in Haiti, Somalia, and the Balkans are examples where we should have stayed out, because there was no national interest at stake. Those we involvements dictated by altruism, correct. But altruism as a motive does not invalidate the right to intervene; it only makes it a mistake.

I will repeat this post on the Intervention thread, where is properly belongs.

The Rand quote is out of context because her assertions do not fall within the context of our discussion. I also believe, like tex-oma, that the article repudiates our foreign policy due to it's basis in altruism.

War on foreign soil and used with taxpayer money allows for no withdrawal of support for that war by its citizens. Thus it is immoral even if the goals are supposedly just as it forces those who do not agree with those goals to support them by force.

And that is as anti-libertarian as it gets. By the way, Objectivism is not the same thing as libertarianism. The fact that Rand can justify the use of force on foreign soil (if she even does in the article you posted) puts her at odds with libertarian principles.

The article where Rand is quoted discusses justification for military intervention abroad. You and I were discussing justification for military intervention abroad. Where is the difference in context?

Altruism is no vice. According to Rand, intervention is justified whenever the invaded nation has no basic freedoms. If it is done for atruistic reasons, the national interest is not served, but the intervention itself is still rightful. Intervention for oil, or in retaliation for the Twin Tower massacre whould clearly serve the national interest, so that point is moot.

The issue of consent as you raise it, is also misplaced. Consent for basic constitutional function of the government is presumed in the very existence of the government. Then, majoritarian consent for specific policies is sought periodically at election time. It is when the government violates your rights by stepping outside of its constitutional perimeter that universal consent becomes a necessity.

Whatever the differences between libertarianism and objectivism -- and I am aware of them, -- a quote from Rand surely qualifies as a libertarian source. For some reason the libertarians today deviate from their own orthodoxy, and the Libertarian Party has foreign non-intervention on its platform. Funny how this abandonment of libertarian principles in search of a pacifist vote did not propel LP anywhere.

Consent for basic constitutional function of the government is presumed in the very existence of the government

Unless consent is forced.

Foreign intervention abroad is not in our constitution. Thus I don't consent voluntarily to supporting such a war effort.

And by the way, altruism is a fraud. I'm surprised that you seek to legitimize it. Even Rand doesn't do that.

Regardless of the actual text of the Constitution, I don't understand how a society can have a goverment unless the entire domain of foreign policy and the entire domain of war making is wholesale given to the government. That is because the other nations will view us not as individuals but as a national unity. So, how are you going to withdraw consent? There is no mechanism for you to do it equitably. Let's say you withdraw consent for a foreign adventure. How do you do it? You hold on to a portion of your taxes. Now, let's say the government's adventure brought you a benefit after all. It appears that you've freeloaded.

I don't see a more equitable mechanism of consent in matters of national interest than majoritarian consent at election time. Do you?

About altruist foreign policy, I agree with Rand. Altruistic intervention is rightful with respect to the nation that is intervened when that nation is ruled by a government that usurped power. It is rightful with respect to us citizens if it is justified by the national interest. It is rightful as long as the government can present a plausible case for the national interest. If that case is falty, then the nation, being a free nation, would vote the government out of office. Till then -- till the election time -- the citizens may agitate against the foreign policy, but they may not legally withhold consent.

I'll probably re-post this, with modifications, on the other thread, where LSJohn should see it.

The problem is you're putting the cart before the horse.

We no longer live in a Republic but a totalitarian dictatorship. the President wages war at the expense of you and I and this is because he hasn't bothered to get our consent before waging war.

In the law, the President cannot act at all unless your representatives declare a formal state of war.

The President is only allowed to move our forces when there is an impending invasion.

I would agree that this might be one of those times. However, one has to wonder why one would stage soldiers in Afghanistan leaving the nation wide open for an invasion.

On the matter of consent. First, the income tax takes all issue of monitary consent out of the picture. The income tax is in fact unconstitutional if indeed it really applies to all American citizens.

Second, it was specifically stated that one could refuse to serve. That's the law. If for instance, the war was to be waged on foreign soil and had no relationship to national defense, the potential soldiers could tell the feds to pound sand.

If the military were only funded for the two years that is demanded by the constitution, every incursion would require consent by those serving. And this is all designed with the fact in mind that all political and military power comes from the people.

I am sorry that this pains you so. Actually no I'm not because you really don't give a rats ass whether or not our military and foreign policy is either constitutional or libertarian in nature. You are seeking "libertarian" principles with which to justify your position. There aren't any.

We no longer live in a Republic but a totalitarian dictatorship

I've lived under not one but two totalitarian dictatorships and can tell the difference between a dictatorship and a representative government any time. We have an elected government; nobody prevented the voters from voting in Harry Browne.

Here's the question for you. Imagine that the President not only gets a declaration of war from Congress, but also puts this "war on terrorism" to a plebiscite. I think you'd agree that the results of the prebiscite would be 90% pro-war and 10% anti-war. Now, these 10% do not consent to the war. Should we not go to war because of the 10%? How about the rights to self-defense of the 90% -- they choose to exercise them by empowering the government to fight a war? How do you propose the 10% withdraw their consent -- what in practicality they should, under natural law, do?

Your question is meaningless. We do in fact live under a dictatorship. We call it a republic but so are many military dictatorships in South America and Africa called republics. The fact that we have a benevolant dictator doesn't change the fact that he is a dictator. There is no further restraint on his ability to make war. That is the definition of a dictatorship. That our President hasn't turned the military on us is simply a formality which will be abandoned in the future (and the past).

The fact that 90% of the people would vote to ignore the constitution is not a concern of mine. Obviously all of those who promise to abide by the document either don't know what it says or do not care. So it is a troubling factoid, but it does not change my mind.

The definition of a dictator is one who can dictate laws at will.

Again you are mistaken as you think that this requires legislative action. Otherwise you'd agree that our President is a dictator.

If one can assert power and influence without the necessity of legislation and has the military power to execute the laws he has made up in his head, he is a dictator and the legislature and court system are simply un-necessary relics. They stands as merely a representation of what once was. The military and all federal law enforcement agencies are at the direction of the president. Agencies under his control are empowered through "administrative law" to write their own tickets based on the President's directions.

How about the rights to self-defense of the 90% -- they choose to exercise them by empowering the government to fight a war? How do you propose the 10% withdraw their consent -- what in practicality they should, under natural law, do?

How about: stop the 90% from stealing money from me in order to give me protection I don't want? Let me choose my own kind of protection and to pay for it in my own way. Let me assemble with those who agree with me.

I rather suspect that once the 90% discovered that our planes stayed up in the sky and that foreigners didn't hate us, they might decide to join us. But that's beside the point. It's my life. Let me decide how to take care of it.

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.