I think generally I'm in agreement with your response, although I may lean towards LP stands on governmental involvement a little more. I think that, barring a preemptive role as our country seems to have played in Iraq, the U.S. ought to stay out of foreign entanglements, and our role ought to be limited to protecting our own country instead of extending American protection to Americans overseas or foreign countries.
I for the most part agree with you here. But I'm just not sure I've thought this one over to the degree it needs. I understand the argument and appeal the position has to many middle and poorer classes of Americans that they shouldn't have to pay to protect rich Americans hobnobbing, vacationing, and even doing business abroad. The problem however, is where to draw the line.
We of course could argue that even where American citizens are invited, they travel at their own risk. We can also argue that merchant shipping companies should cover the costs of their own naval protection. Likewise, the same can be proposed for airlines. As far as American officials and employees at foreign embassies and councilets, we can just bring them home. Or require even them to travel and stay abroad at their own risk.
On the otherhand, do we want American companies engaged in fullblown private wars with foreign powers? If not, what kinds of limits would we put on private company self protective measures. Currently, though only selectively enforced, we have laws limiting the paramilitary security activities abroad of American citizens and large companies. Admittedly we could enforce more fully such laws and leave the entirety of our foreign relations to good will. But...
That would be a different world, with a different set of problems. For example, foreign based piracy of American ships, with official deniability of host nations, might very well eliminate our shipping industry completely. Problems we see as non-existant in the current world, may very well become the norm with a libertarian America. Now mind you, I am a radical libertarian. But I say a lot more work on the libertarian philosophy is needed before we acquire any kind of electoral presence in American government.
I agree with you that we need to end foreign entanglements and we should not be protecting foreign governments. I also agree that we should not be protecting Americans abroad. But on this latter one, I do not know where the line should be currently drawn, at least not at this time.
But the US role in Iraq was not preemptive, a point most people don't seem to understand. Iraq launched a war of aggression against Kuwait. In a response entirely justified by (L)libertarian principles, the United Nations Security Council authorized a defensive war to remove the aggressor from that country. Among many conditions set down by the United Nations Security Council--and agreed to by Iraq in order to affect a cease fire--was a complete transparency in Iraq's weapons programs and the enforcement of a restricted airspace over Northern and Southern Iraq. Iraq repeatedly refused to comply fully with the terms of this agreement. Offenses against these two aspects were the most egregious; there were others. The members of the UN Security Council agreed in one resolution after another over the course of ten years that Iraq was substantially in breach of the cease fire agreement. Consequently, the 1991 Gulf War never really ended. In Resolution 1441 the Security Council warned Iraq of the gravest consequences if it failed to comply. While the Bush Administration used the argument of weapons of mass destruction and the proximity of 9/11 as a justifying casus belli to the American people, under the terms of UN resolution 678, no such justification was required. Nor, contrary to the claims of some Security Council members, did the US need any further Security Council action to justify forced compliance.
Here are some of the earlier, relevant UN SC resolutions:
Resolution 660 in 1990: Call on Iraq to withdraw immediately and unconditionally all forces from Kuwait.
Resolution 678 in 1990: Authorizes member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area [Kuwait].
Resolution 687 in 1991: Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction [...] of [a]ll chemical and biological weapons [...] and all [...] ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres.
I've taken some pains to document this because this is at the heart of my complaint with the "internationalists" in general, and the LP (which has joined the disreputable ranks of that group) in particular. If international law is to have any meaning, and if the principles of the LP are to be enforced, a muscular response is sometimes necessary. When that is lacking, it is an inducement to the commission of further crimes. This is why the LP pledge/oath/affirmation is only half a usable pledge. The second half, a vow not taken by any Libertarian I know of, is just as important: "When force is initiated as a means of achieving political or social goals, I pledge that I will never fail to respond."
The supposedly principled resistance to the use of force by France, China, Russia and a number of other SC members was nothing of the kind. They were pursuing their own interests without regard to the fact that by failing to enforce the Security Council's resolutions they were making a joke of UN, the Secuirty Council, and the rule of law. Far from being an shunned as an international pariah, George Bush should be exalted as the man who upheld the integrity of the UN.