Spread the Love

Don't forget the person that invariable bears the burdern for the US "liberating people around the world": the US service member. It's true that all military folks have volunteered. It's true that they have all taken an oath to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and superior officers. It's true that these orders may be designed to acheive political and moral ends not immediately or tangibly connected to a military threat to the US.

But the spirit of the oath military people take revoilves around the defense of the United States. Despite the history of US military action, I think "defense of the nation" is what most people are thinking about when they join the military. To shift focus to "liberation of people around the world" means a pretty serious shift in the spirit of the commitment they have made.

If 21st century American foreign policy should be about aggressivly spreading democracy, those folks ought to have an opportunity to reevaluate their commitment.

I'm confused. Who are these "libertarians" you speak of? A thoughtful, serious isolationist-libertarian would not have been in favor of this war. And Blake's point is right: our military's mission is to defend our nation. If we want to change its mission, we need to have a national debate on the topic.

And while your goals are noble, Anil, I really don't think it's possible for us to afford to fix all the world's problems, no matter how tempting, without driving our own country to the brink of poverty.

But bravo on calling out the hypocrisy of the conservatives who claim that liberating the Iraqis is enough of a motivation for the war. Although I daresay the neo-cons actually do honestly agree with your ideas here.

I'm quite prepared for President Bush to lump in Mugabe, etc. with Hussein and Bin Laden. Operation: Congo Freedom here we come!

Riiiiight.

Blake, I agree 100% that our current military should be given the chance to re-evaluate their participation if their mission changes. Hell, I think they should be given that chance all the time, out of respect for the gravity of the sacrifices they are asked to make. Part of the process for switching the mission to this process of justification is going to require Americans to put their money where their mouths are and actually provide sufficient justifications to make this lifestyle appealing to people who are in the service.

That means finally paying them what they're worth, or at least finally paying them a living wage.

And Dave, the libertarians I'm speaking of are the loud ones, the ones on the web, the ones who've taken the mantle of libertarianism and proclaimed themselves its leaders and voices. There's no question that there are true libertarians still preaching isolationism, but they're as relevant to the future of that group as the lost far-left are to the liberal cause.

"I'm confused. Who are these "libertarians" you speak of?"

Here's one:

Al Barger's blog

Where there's one, there's another, and another and...

Anil:

You and I must associate with very different brands of libertarians. See the "Hit and Run" section of reason.com for reference. Losertarians seem to have been amongst the most ardent of anti-war types.

Also, I've never encountered nor read or heard about anyone claiming that the sole justification for attacking Iraq was human rights. It was a positive by-product, perhaps, but not the sole justification.

It's one thing to claim a label for yourself and another to fulfill it. Nothing about the GOP's leadership, vision, or politics should please a libertarian. Al Barger appears to be a commie-hating Ann Coulter fan of the worst sort. Alas, I think Anil's right that such people have co-opted the label to my detriment. I'll just have to come up with something new...

Great post, Anil.
We agree (here).

Anil may have hit on something here folks. Somebody is going to be screaming blue bloody murder when a republican administration or maybe Edwards? Lieberman? picks up on this idea and says "Hey! Now that's a great way to see an American Empire to the people. Let's just spin it as "Helping them acheive their human rights!"

- A neocon and a glow in the dark monk

Should have been "sell" not "see", my apologies to the great spell checker in the sky...

I guess Anil's pushing for some sort of Pax Americana here. I similarly guess that one can construe proactive military action in the world as trying to protect the homeland before people--held down by The Man--are hacked off enough to lob a couple Molotov's on Fifth Avenue, or hijack some planes and fling them at tall buildings, or something.

Of course, we did this a century ago all throughout Latin America, and did that work out? Not really.

America's almost an accident in terms of how the political society grew: a largely homogeneous population far from home, bound by roughly common senses of justice [under British common law] and religious freedom [as many escaped persecution by the Anglican Church; the rest cared little for religion other than worship of the almighty ... pound/dollar], given a rebellious spirit by an oppressive government whose influence could be ousted with relative ease.

That's a hell of a lot of coincidences. American liberal democracy isn't really replicated anywhere else in the world with anything approaching the stability and quality of American liberal democracy. To think that we can spread this by the sword is kinda silly; anything that gets set up after we go in and root out a dictator is likely to resemble our form of government only nominally.

Is it worth doing? Yeah, it probably is. But there's one hell of a cost in doing so, and pushing a Pax Americana probably ends up corroding the center, just like the Pax Romana did for Rome.

Of course, it *would* give us a place to send all these out-of-work MBA's. ;)

Welcome to the Imperial Club, Anil. It's good to know that there are more and more people who are understanding the moral imperative of intervention. And I think at this moment in history it is reasonable to say that Rumsfeld has proven his point. We've got a sum total of about 2000 civilian casualties, which in the global scheme of combat is a mild pittance, and we have decapitated an extraordinarily oppressive government.

There seems to be no way of saying this kind of thing without sounding snarkily ironic or overbearingly arrogant. Granted, this is not the kind of conversation we are accustomed to having. I hope we don't have to have another one like it soon; I don't know how serious Perle is about Syria.

Still, I think everyone who has been making their cynical arguments about why Iraq and why not Congo, et. al should spend a bit more time blogging about those ugly places. Up until now they haven't which rubs me raw. You can't imagine how irritating it is to hear some folks draw dastardly conclusions about the death of one Al-Jazeera reporter when they are on the same side of the fence as those who fuss about shabby humanitarian aid. If you really cared about the fate of oppressed people then the sheer number of them suffering everywhere in the world would vastly outweigh any point that could possibly be made about an overcrowded hospital in Basra this week or the fate of a dozen reporters in the Palestine Hotel.

I am not going to spend any more time ripping that strawman, but I think anyone who looks closely at what has been overcome here should consider with some seriousness what a proper empire can do pre-emptively in a world full of dictators.

Dan Hartung (blogging again)

I'm don't think I can agree with your binary taxonomy, Anil.

Where was it ever written that libertarians had to be isolationist? Many were, but I think the impulse to oppose a repressive state whether or not it's your is always there, too.

And the neocons have always supported an activist foreign policy; they just have different ideas about when, where, how, and why.

Call it unenlightened self-interest, if you like, but there's a non-trivial number of people who believe that the time has come for the US to ease its support for strongman governments in favor of democratic institutions, if only out of self-preservation as those cultures seem to breed a resentment toward America. The difference between the right/center consensus and the left consensus, now, is whether or not we should do this in a gradual manner that protects other American interests or just take off and go home now out of moral compunction.

Unfortunately I think the term "libertarian" has surpassed the term "anarchist" for most hijacked term in the political debate.

After I drop that word out of the essay it sounds like you're trying to use hypocrisy as a lever to win debating points -- to which an aging comfortable (mostly white) affluent politico who had a stern father and a good beating or two earlier in their lives would say "You say 'hypocrisy' like it's a bad thing" because back-filling a comfortable life-style with rationales is easy once you hit a certain place in life -- remarkably easy, lemme tellya.

otoh, I think Dan is a perfect example of someone who came to his conclusions honestly. The wrong conclusions but very honest nonetheless. ;-) I think he does an admirably consistent job at separating the war from the discussion about the war.

...and speak for yourself, I would miss Car Talk.
and Le Show.

If you take a very long term view, it could be argued that freeing anyone from dictatorship is defense of the US. Democracies don't go to war with each other (we just have trade wars).

With what you say is their new-found fondness for intervention, one can imagine that those un-named libertarians now have a list of nations requiring attention.

In fairness to the newer bullies on the block, they might just start by going after the world's longest lasting dictator. His historical support of terrorism is well-documented (and self-admitted), his jails are crammed full of political opponents and their hapless relatives, and he maintains concentration camps for gays and those infected with HIV.

If those unnamed "libertarians" do want to topple the regime of Fidel Castro, what say you? Is it "the right thing to do?"

The way I see it, the words disingenuity and democracy are what I want you to talk more about Anil. What do you mean by the disingenuity of the US foreign policy...I presume you are talking about the fact that the US administration has begun on the unilateral warpath. ( I also presume you are writing with more sarcasm in your voice than I am hearing...)

Here's where my question about Democracy comes in to the equation. Yes, I agree with you- America should continue to be interventionist, but on the proviso that they do so in a democratic way...a world scale democratic way - Ie. with the blessing of the UN, otherwise the US (as they have just proven) can more or less march, carte blanche, in to any country which the US administration feels is in need of 'saving'.(Conspiracy theorists are already argueing that it's a road map to amerify the world).

Not exactly democratic really is it, the US Administration decides where and when they want to act, regardless of what the people of said country feel about it, not least the US citizens or the rest of the world.

You say best case scenario the US saves the world (fairly and democratically with other countries sharing their share of the burden).
Well, worst case scenario, the US picks and chooses it's charity countries to 'save', leaving countries like Zimbabwe or East Timor for other countries to deal with,and don't even get me started on Palestine. Worst case scenario no.2, the US continues to facillitate the saddam's and the Taliban's of the world coming to power in the first place. When I really think about it we already have those worst case scenarios don't we, in which case the worst case scenario is the aforementionaed conspiracy theory.

Some argue that it's not 'fair' that the US always has to do it in the first place. All I can say is that you don't choose responsibility,..it chooses you. It is your decision whether to be responsible or not and in this incredibly interconnected world, economically, socially, health wise and environmentally, if the US chooses not to step up to the plate they are shooting themselves in the foot.

but you know all this anyway, I know I know, I'm preaching to the converted.(and using every single cliche'd expression i know to boot..i should shut up now)

Anil,

Take a look at The Pentagon's New Map

It is an article by Thomas P.M. Barnett, published in Esquire magazine, on how the Pentagon and the current administration now views and talks about the world.

If you listen to how people like Rumsfeld, and even to a degree Bush, are now talking about the world, they are talking about the value of being integrated into the world economy, in exactly those terms.

So yes, this could, in theory, support actions being taken in places such as Sub-Saharan Africa which are very cut off from the world economy as well.

Is it time to invade Zimbabwe? (I asked that on another blog).

Zimbabwe is ruled by a dictator with a history of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Many signs (including mass refugees and state-imposed starvation) suggest that another mass killing is in the offing. The new American Imperial doctrine ("save the world") suggests that Zimbabwe, not syria or Iran, should be the next American traget for liberation.

Invade Zimbabwe.

I think helping out the Iraqi people is an added bonus of this war, not the focus or reason. Our security matters more to me than anything else. If in in the process of securing ourselves we happen to help citizens of other countries, that's great. To make that a focal point of our foreign policy, to invade and change what we want is something I would not accept. America does put pressure on places like Zimbabwe or Congo. To go to war is not necessary. I admit that I was an isolationist for most of my life and yes things have changed for me-since 9/11, but not in the way you describe.

How about a list of countries meriting US military action? Off the top of my head, I think we can put down:
1. Most of the former USSR. Russia, Georgia, and Kirgizstan are just about the only ones with anything vaguely resembling a functioning democracy
2. Most of the Middle East. I'm looking at you, Saudi Arabia.
3. Most of Africa.
4. Burma, Vietnam (oh wait, we tried that already), North Korea (ditto), Laos, Cambodia, and what the hell, as long as we're in the neighborhood, the People's Republic of China.

Flesh this list out and order it by annual oil production.

Just echoing points made above, I haven't heard of any libertarians justifying this war on humanitarian grounds. The hardcore isolationists are still hardcore isolationists (see LewRockwell.com); those who have come to support the war support it on national security grounds and see the liberation of Iraq's people as a pleasant side-effect. Some libertarians have pointed out the Left's hypocrisy in opposing the war on humanitarian grounds, when it was, by some measures, the most humanitarian thing to do. But that doesn't mean they themselves agreed with the humanitarian justification.

The point of view you're talking about is a certain strain of conservatism, not libertariansim.

Wow, so intervention can only be neutral or positive? This seems an incredibly limited viewpoint, which in essence the whole post is based on. Not wanting to sound like a raving madman - but how can such facile reductionism really encompass the (even recent) complex and often negative effects in a history of intervention we see (coming from a country whos own 'interventions' caused the deaths of many and current conficts in many places - the U.K.) I am so happy others have such omniscient clarity that Iraq (or even Afghanistan) are such better places now. Considering the huge and visceral hatred the US has (re)created for itself, and adding that to the very unsure future Iraq is now facing - such posts of simplicity seem far removed from what I would consider reality (and pretty damn arrogant too). What if a majority of Iraqis want a theocracy - close to the Iranian model? What if the geo-political interests of the US clash with the direction Iraqis want to go in. Then does the US fund rebels in a civil war - or supports a military junta veiled in the guise of a pseudo-democracy? Are you even sure democracy is the 'perfect' model for societies other than your own? I have friends of a friend who are activists from RAWA - they are still fighting for very basic rights in a country that is still deeply deeply unstable. They (who should be SO grateful) are so utterly disillusioned with the US and its intervention. That is the model of intervention you want to follow (based on your posts happy acceptance that humanistic concerns will be the automatic direct outcome of military conquest)?

Do you view the interventions of the European Empires in this positive light (remember they often described their conquests as bring 'civilisation' and culture to the 'others'). Are you convinced the interventions (direct and indirect) of the U.S. have *always* been really beneficial in a humanitarian sense? If you answer yes to both those questions, then you read history from differnts books to me. If you answer 'depends' - then you need to analyse when interventions have been positive or not, break down underlying causes and the try to apply that to your current thinking.

I am not an anti-interventionist per se - but such a glib 'intervention-can-only-be-good' viewpoint is breathtaking to me. I wish I had the moral clarity you do, but I am afraid it can only come with a blinkered view of the complexity of the world around us.