Knock yourself out. Just don't do it on my dime.
If you accept that premise, then you should admit that I can also commission my goverment to do the retaliating for me.
No I shouldn't. That would necessarily enlist the resources of people who weren't harmed by the action and who might be put in harms way due to the un-necessary and unlibertarian retaliation by a government on behalf of a "special citizen."
Rights of self defense have nothing to do with national jurisdiction, -- unless you think that the right of self defense is also government-given.
Strawman. The corporation has all the right in the world to defend itself. It simply doesn't get to use my money to do so. That's an anathema to libertarianism. The government is not in place to defend the rights of individuals around the world. It's place is to protect the rights of citzens within its jurisdiction. Arabia is not within its jurisdiction. If a private citizen is harmed in another country, then he can address his grievance with that country and even attempt to obtain the voluntary assistence of his fellow citizens. He may not coerce their support by demanding the government retaliate on his behalf because he is the only person receiving the benefit of such retaliation.
The proper response in this case are letters of Marque. Not military aggression.
I don't know why in the world you think such would be either constitutional or libertarian. It violates many tenets of libertarianism. The military is for the defense of our borders. Period.
Let me restate.
Inside the national border my government has a duty to protect me. Outside of the national border my government has no such duty. But if it chooses to protect me, it is justified in using unlimited force.
There are two issues here.
(1) Is retaliatory use of force justified across national border? The answer is clearly yes, regardless of whether the victim retaliates himself, commissions other private parties, or commissions the government.
(2) Is the government justified in acting on a private citizen's request? To answer that we need to look into the nature of the harm done to the citizen, -- there is no single answer. When government inaction would prompt further violence -- as it would if our government doesn't respond to the terrorist attack -- then the government not only may retaliate, but also must retaliate. When the action would be bailing out a private commercial interest -- such as when Exxon's property is nationalized somewhere -- then the government should not use the taxpayers' money and put lives in danger by retaliating, although it still may retaliate. Looking back at the past 50 years I, together with Peikoff, think that the retreat by the West from the imperialist or colonialist positions it once held,-- such as the cedig of the oil interests, -- was a strategic mistake not because it victimized Exxon, but because that retreat planted the seeds of today's misery in Africa and Asia, as well as the Twin Center massacre.
With respect to some Arab countries we may have a situation when a military action is justified because of 9/11. So the dilemma arises: if retaliation is justified by one reason, terrorism, -- can the government take care of another injustice and repossess the oil company properties at the same time? The answer is yes, because the government has the opportunity to retaliate for the acts of terror and repossess the goods at no additional cost.