My opinion is that Professor Machan is owed apologies by some, and the recognition from all of us that he took an ethical position that wasn't popular at the time. That's a virtue to be prized.  For example, we all agree that a communist has the right to get up on a soap-box and make false claims about the imaginary benefits of communism.  Those who defend his right to free speech, even during a time when we are under a threat of attack by communisim is to be commended for staying with reason and basic principles in a time of high emotions.

He didn't argue that Saddam wasn't an aggressor - which many of those who disagreed with him implied - but that Saddam wasn't aggressing against the United States in anyway that would require us to go to war.  He didn't say that it would be wrong for other organizations to attack Saddam (the UN, or some civilian organization), but that it was not the proper job of the US military whose job is to defend our nation from attack (actual or immediately imminent) and to retaliate against a nation that has already attacked.

The idea of "preemptive retaliation" is such nonsense.  "Retaliation" is always after the intiation of force - by definition.  There is only defense and/or retaliation that can be moral and legal and both require initiation of force by the aggressor and that force has to be at us - otherwise we are the world's policeman.  Some would say that we shouldn't wait till the missles have landed before we act. Of course!  But there have to be weapons and unrefutable evidence they are going to be used against us.  Any argument to the contrary means that we would be morally right to attack every country whose leaders hate the US and might be secretly getting WMD right now, or already have weapons.

Given that Professor Machan favors a strong defense of our country, it was a bit obscene to see people ignoring his argument that our military should not be acting outside of its proper role.  How can one be in favor of a limited government yet twist their mind around to the point of seeing the initiation of massive force where not a single American's rights were being infringed?  Do we just make up what the "limits" are as we go along?

What I saw in many of the arguments for war in Iraq was emotionalism.  It was an emotional drive to stop tyranny and rescue innocents.  Those motivations are good, but one can't institute liberty by ignoring the very principles it depends upon.  We don't arrest, convict and imprison people who are very angry at their spouses and MIGHT attack them.  

And because of the level of emotionalism, there was no place for commonsense recognition that you can't install the intellectual/cultural base that freedom requires by using bombs and guns alone.  And ignoring what Professor Machan pointed out - Democracy can vote in tyranny every bit as easily as freedom.  Actually, easier given that tyranny is still the bedrock intellectual and cultural foundation in that country.

There were two kinds of opposition to Professor Machan's views.  Those that were presented in a civil fashion, and those that were rude and used the kind of tone an Objectivist should reserve for dicators, not the professor.  Reasoned, civil arguments, particularly in areas like foriegn affairs are good things, and will help us all evolve better positions.

In the interests of honest disclosure:  I was in favor of the war in Iraq.... but only for a few weeks.  I got caught up in the emotional arguments, the hatred for people like Saddam, and the false promises of a democratic middle-east.  I was turned around, in part, by reasoned arguments against the war that went to the basic principles.

Iraq was a debt of national honor.     If this nation could leave that debt unpaid, then blow this nation to Hell.

Gulf War I:   Should the world have let Saddam eat Kuwait?   The world decided not.  The US participated, and kicked Saddam out of Kuwait.  We intervened, because when a thug is beating the crap out of someone acriss the street, sometimes it is in your best interest to cross the street.  No problem, we came home and threw parades.  Was over in less than 100days. Overwhelming force with a clear mission. Powell Doctrine in action.

1996.   The US is enforcing 'No Fly Zones' in northern and southern Iraq.    But we are doing more.    And here is where Gulf War II in Iraq was born.   We had covert ops on the ground in Northern Iraq, actively encouraging the Kurds to revolt against Saddam.  (This, according to Sen Bob Kerry, once head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, speaking at the JFK Library Foundation in March 2003.   Candidly.  "I could go to jail for saying this, but ...".  Because that was the mood then, too, by once honorable men in government who bit their lip.)    Authorized agents of our government were on the ground in Iraq post GWI, speaking for the US governmenrt, covertly, actively telling Kurds to revolt, that America would 'have their backs' when they did.    And they did, and America did nothing but watch from $30M fighters overhead as Saddam's ground troops went into Northern Iraq and ...what was the euphemism that permitted America to accept this? ... 'rolled them up.'    Thousands of Kurds, killed, expecting the US to 'have their back' when they revolted, because that is what our government, in our name, told them.

And our government did nothing.

Until Bush 43 used the national psyche post 9/11 to go fulfill a national debt of honor seven years late, without telling the nation why.

If we are a nation of people who can tolerate that kind of weaseldom, then fuck this nation, it is already dead.

And we should fix the fuindamental cause of this calamity, which is, covert ops making weasely promises unkept in this nation's name.   Where is the accounting for these out of all control weasels?   If our covert operators on the ground were being fed a line of shit by their command, then where is the command accounting today?    Those at the pointy end of the stick always pay the price; the weasels hunkered around the Bistros in Georgetown skulk away to their soft landings in IKE's MIC.   It is so far past time to drain the fucking swamps around DC that it isn't funny.

This nation can know these things, and not demand heads on pikes of its leaders and the apparatus who did it.  And so, screw this nation, it is already long fucked.

No undeclared wars.   No covert undeclared encouragement of others to go to war.    The realpoliticks of weaseldom is not a firm foundation for the spine of a nation unless it is a nation of gutless weasels.

I am not saying that was the -only- reason for going to Iraq in 2003.

The other reason was based on looking at a map, but also never justified to this nation.  Also done anyway..

What two nations bracket Iran?

And just to be clear, the US wasn't just in Iraq; the US was, and is, in bases in 15 nations in the M.E.    Bush paved an 8 lane highway into the M.E., straight from Ike's MIC, bracketing Iran.

There was a confluence of reasons behind Bush taking the nation to Iraq.  Poorly explained to the nation.  And by poorly, I mean, not at all.

So why is Obama still in Afghanistan, to this day?

Fred,

We disagree, somewhat, on the Iraq war.

I completely agree that there should be no undeclared wars.
I completely agree that swamps around DC should be cleared of covert trouble makers.
I completely agree that when military force should be used, it should be overwhelming, and it must have a clear mission.

I believe that war requires not just a proper declaration by congress, but that it must be in our national interest (not the world's national interest, or the best interests of some other nation's people, or for some other goal like world peace, or stopping bullies).   And I believe that it is long past the time when the phrase "national security" be tossed out - it no longer has any real meaning, if it ever did.

I don't agree that promises made to the Kurds by people who weren't authorized to "declare war," which is what their promises amounted to, could or should ever commit this nation to going to war. The obligation we have is to not go to war unless we are under attack or about to be attacked, and with a level of threat/attack that justifies a war. The obligation we have is to honor the constitution's demand that war be declared by congress. The final obligation we have is root out the covert weasels - punish them, and put in protections against further weasle-like actions.

My honor is tied to my actions. It isn't tied to promises secretly made to third parties by people never authorized to make the promises they did. And the same is true for this nation.

I see lots of things that could be labeled a positive in that war, but not when you add up the negatives. Yes, Saddam was a monster, but that doesn't answer the arguments about observing the constitution, not being a world policeman, etc.

Yes we got, for the time being, air bases in a key location, but that is also something that doesn't rise to level needed to justify unleasing the dogs of war.

------------

There is no utopia. There are bad people with power, like Saddam was. There are occasions where our military have the opportunity and the capacity to stop them. But to take those shots requires violating the principles that protect our individual rights.

Those in the world that value liberty need to join in effective ways to stop tyranny. That requirment will be more obvious and more likely to come into being when we stop being the World's policeman.  Our stopping those police actions will actually increase the boldness of the bad guys, and that along with whatever fortitude and understanding of liberty that people around the world possess, will increase their efforts to find ways of fighting tyranny.  But even then, it isn't likely to be as nearly as effective as we'd want. The temptation keeps arising to do what one can where one can, but that's a trap when it takes us into using our government, or letting it run off on its own, to do things that stray from the strict interpetation of protecting the individual rights of its citizens.