The Iraqi War -- Four Years Later

A preemptive warning to the reader:

Mark will come back with a multitude of historical facts in order to show that my scenario is all jacked-up. Watch for his use of facts that were so precisely because the world was run by men NOT employing his criterion for going to war, facts that would NOT have been so if those men HAD BEEN employing his criterion.

‘But Hitler DID invade France before going east.’

He would NOT have if he thought France, Britain and the U.S. were employing Steve/Mark’s criterion. In that case, he would have not feared for his west flank at all.

‘The U.S. taunted Japan into striking first.’

Which it would NOT have done unless it saw war with Japan as inevitable and wanted to expedite that eventuality. Led by Mark, the U.S. would have done no taunting, Japan would feel secure in its safety so long as she didn’t directly attack us, and her domination of the Pacific and East Asia would have gone unopposed.

‘Hitler was only interested in expanding to the east, not at all to the west.’

That’s what he told them hoping to dupe them into a peace treaty. Unable to secure such a treaty—and knowing that the nations to his west were not led by Mark, they would not stand idle and watch him take everything to his east—he understood that he had to neutralize them first. (He had already duped Stalin, already had a peace treaty with Stalin to his east.) Had Hitler has the fortune of a west led by Mark, he would have gone straight east and taken Mark later, when it was too late for Mark.

Etc.

Post 101

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 5:46am

It is illuminating to ask what would have happened if this or that criteria for going to war were applied to this or that historical situation.

[side hyjack] [of sorts] This is reminding me of the arguments put forth about George Bayley in "It's a Wonderful Life", wherein if he hadn't done the things he did, the world in that town would have fallen apart - as if he and he alone would have made the good decisions and everyone else were deterministic slags.... rubbish, as it so clearly then defines the altruistic concourse of 'imminent threat' and the 'white knight' complex, leaving aside individualistc self-determinations - the world is far more complex than even the 'butterfly effect' would have you assume.....

The Manifest Destiny merely refered to Ted's view of what constituted the so-called duties of the President and the nature of what he considered as 'imminent threat' - and that contrary to his illusion, is NOT what Rand would have agreed with as being Objectivist...

Post 102

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 10:04am

altruistic concourse of 'imminent threat' and the 'white knight' complex

Of course I could just as easily call isolationist libertarians nihilistic pacifists with an "ostrich bury your head in the sand" complex.

Let's see what Robert Malcolm considers altruistic. If you heard your neighbor across the street screaming calls for help, as his family is being slaughtered one by one by a serial killer, to go in and aid that neighbor would mean you are not acting in your self-interest, that of securing your neigborhood and establishing lasting justice (which is to your long term benefit), but instead out of some altruistic notion of self-sacrifice. That a police officer then, to take this to Robert's absurd conclusion, are too, acting with altruistic notions of self-sacrifice when they too, respond to a 911 call. This isn't altruism, it is justice. And to call it altruism is a perversion of what that word means in an effort to pervert the establishment of justice.

It's not altruism when you help protect your fellow man from violent attack or slavery. You've confused the confiscation of your property by a looting welfare state, or the guilt of original sin, as being the same as helping your fellow man when he is suffering the injustice from the initiation of force by a tyrant or criminal. Robert is expressing a view that is nothing short of anarchy, with it's logical conclusion being the total destruction of man's rights.

is NOT what Rand would have agreed with as being Objectivist...

Oh Really? Do you speak for Rand? I thought your name was Robert Malcolm not Ayn Rand. So how the hell would you know that, did you ask her? Did she communicate with you from the dead in a seance to say "Robert, I wish to tell you that I do not approve of Ted et al's ideas of what constitutes an imminent threat"

Let's also view the absurdity of this appeal to authority argument. Rand's views on the concretization of what met the criterion of a nation's self-defense were not gospel, and *gasp* in my opinion were sometimes wrong.

The fact is the question of when something is a threat that would constitute a retaliatory strike to it, is a complicated issue, but it does not absolve a leader, or the people of that nation, to not choose a course of action because it is just too complex and better to just leave a tyrant well enough alone to continue his monstrous acts and thereby send the message no one will hold him accountable. If something was a tactical mistake but done so because information was not privy to you at the time, it was not an immoral decision as you can't be omniscient, and you can only act with the best possible information in front of you, and choosing not to act does not absolve one from the moral decision. If in that tactical error, the decision was to topple a totalitarian regime that enslaved a population that you viewed as a threat to your rational self-interest, it is not an immoral decision. But who the hell do you isolationist libertarians get off branding us anti-Randians or non-objectivists because we don't bye into your isolationist views on morality? Contrary, if Rand got it wrong on her concretizations of national self-defense on past historical accounts, that's simply not my problem. Nor does she have the final word on historical analysis.

(Preparing for the onslaught of shouts "Armaos you heretic! Rand was never wrong! She was omniscient!)

Post 103

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 11:39am

Steve wrote, “If you spend a lot of time doing history what-ifs, you're likely to start using pragmatic evaluations where moral standards are needed.”

This suggests a division between the pragmatic (practical) and the moral. I submit that a moral of when to go to war must hold up to practical scrutiny if we wish to call it moral.

If it can be shown that a stringent ‘not until we are attacked on our own soil’ moral of going to war would be exploited by a powerful enemy with no morals, then it is shown that that moral is not moral.

Post 104

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:11pm

Now, now Jon. You have given people a false impression of my position.

You won't see anything in my writings that demands an "until we are attacked on our soil" kind of moral justification." I am on record in many posts that a threat of attack is justification of self-defense.

Next you imply that I am claiming a dichotomy between the practical and the moral. That isn't true either.

On that which is practical and that which is moral, I see no difference between them when neither is forgotten while focusing on the other.

My statement was about people making reasoning errors. It was about spending a lot of time doing history what-ifs, often leading people to using pragmatic evaluations where moral standards are needed. It is about a trap people can fall into that in the long run is neither practical nor moral.

The moral standard is the fastest and surest way to make a first cut in deciding when to go to war. It isn't the last but is always necessary.

Further, people can fool themselves that moral condition x applies because of an imaginary situation they create in their long elaborate what-if scheme. When in fact, the scheme might never attain and the whole chain of reasoning is flawed.

I suggest that it is more pertinent to inquire into the exact attributes and parameters to be looked for in judging what is a valid threat of attack or attack itself. Unless people are advocating going to war without any threat or attack at all. In which case it is encumbent upon them to show their moral justifications for all deaths that result.

Post 105

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 3:51pm

A major complication to debating these issues with Mark is that he doesn’t accept a U.S. government monopoly on the use of force against foreign states in the first place.

In line with his belief in anarcho-libertarianism, he would have things so that protection agencies could do whatever they wanted, constrained only by the support they received from their customers. He assures us, “If payment were voluntary, the vast majority would not hire a defense agency to initiate belligerant activities abroad. They'd damn well insist that it tend to the business they hired it to perform, seeing to the protection of their own lives and property.”

But is this so? Clearly, Mark would give his money only to such agencies, as would be the case for most anarcho-libertarians. But last I checked, such thinkers constitute the vast MINORITY in this country, let alone the world. It would seem that Andre, Michael, John and myself would readily fund agencies that operate from a more expansive conception of what a proper self-defense requires. Many ARI supporters would fund an agency that would be busy nuking all the schools in Saudi Arabia right now. You’ve seen the “Free Tibet” bumper stickers? Their owners would be paying agencies to confront China. It would be a free-for-all, and probably every nation on the planet would be being attacked by one defense agency or another. This would bring the wrath of those nations upon our nation, as they do not appreciate the principle of individualism and would blame the whole U.S., since the threat to them was emanating from the U.S. There could be no international strategy of confronting threats in a unified, coherent way. Right when we secured a mutual cooperation deal with imperfect country A against abhorrent country B, some nut could nuke a madrassa in country A and screw up the plan.

This is another crucial reason why the privilege of confronting foreign states with force must be vested in a single body.

Post 106

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 4:13pm

OK, Steve, you’re right. I attributed “not until we are attacked” to you falsely.

It seems that your end of the debate is about exactly what constitutes a threat of attack, or as you wrote earlier, “the concept of "imminent threat" should be chewed on.”

My view is that so long as the government is going to have a monopoly on the use of force against foreign states, then it is justified in using force to defend property, for example, even where there is no threat at all of attack on our soil. I think it is unfair to deny the owners of Chevron the privilege of sending tanks to confront a foreign state threatening Chevron’s oil fields in that state, and at the same time refuse to do anything about Chevron’s stolen property.

Mark has the upper hand in that scenario, as he would say, ‘let the owners of Chevron do whatever they want to defend their property in that foreign state.’ Objectivists, however, hold an untenable position when they simultaneously say it is Chevron’s risk and Chevron’s problem, and Chevron may NOT mitigate the risks with the use of force to protect their property, because only the government is allowed to use force.

Post 107

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 5:07pm

Steve,

To clarify: what I am saying is that the conditions for use of force abroad (war) must be more expansive than just to defend U.S. soil from attack and imminent attack, according to the logic of the Objectivist justification for government.

According to Rand, individuals have the right to use retaliatory force in defense of their life and property. So if I am confronted in an alley by someone pointing a gun at me, I have the right to shoot them first. Likewise, if I catch someone driving away from my oil well with a truckload of my oil, I have the right to point a gun at them, pump my oil out of their truck into my truck and order them on their way.

None of this changes when I go abroad. If I were confronted with deadly force in an alley in a foreign country, it would be moral to use force to defend my life. Likewise, if I own an oil well in a foreign country—I may use force if I choose—to defend my property from confiscation.

In comes the Objectivist justification for government, which goes: If everyone were to use retaliatory force on their own, there would be chaos. Differing standards of what constitutes a violation of rights, etc. So we have to institute a single body, a government, which defines what constitutes a violation and holds monopoly use of force, applying it only retaliatorily. ‘Not to worry,’ the individual is assured, ‘your rights will still be defended, just not by you.’ Fine so far.

But then in come some Objectivists, such as yourself (if I understand your position correctly,) and even Rand herself (at least in some contexts) arguing that when the individual goes abroad, all bets are off. We are told, if you own property abroad, that risk is on you. But wait a minute! The deal was: I have to give up my right to the use of retaliatory force, but not to worry because the government will use it on my behalf. But now we’re told the government will not use force abroad to protect my property there, because the criterion for such is an attack or imminent attack on U.S. soil.

Well, in that case, I want back my right to use retaliatory force abroad (which would cause its own problems, as I explain in post 105.)

See the problem?

Post 108

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 5:21pm

Jon,

You make a good point when you say,

My view is that so long as the government is going to have a monopoly on the use of force against foreign states, then it is justified in using force to defend property, for example, even where there is no threat at all of attack on our soil. I think it is unfair to deny the owners of Chevron the privilege of sending tanks to confront a foreign state threatening Chevron’s oil fields in that state, and at the same time refuse to do anything about Chevron’s stolen property.

I have mixed feelings in this area. It was obviously wrong for various governments, like Iran, to have nationalized the holdings of different oil companies. The right thing for the US government to do, when it was a predominately American owned company, would be to demand the return of the property and to do with the marines at ready. You would not be going to war, or need a declaration of war, you would be taking back stolen property. The nation that now has marines on their soveriegn property might be really pissed and they might choose to escalate and it might end up a war from our point of view when the escalation threatens our country.

But, what do we do - assuming we want to be principled rather than pragmatic - when there is a crooked rug dealer in the souk that cheats an American tourist out of say $40? I assume that the embassy can lodge a protest, but assume that is repeatedly ignored. Assume further that the government, at a local level, gets a cut from the rug merchant (like a bribe going to the local cop). Do we send the marines in there too?

Or do we give Chevron permission to buy tanks on the premise that what happens outside of American borders by people who do not represent the American government are not under American jurisdiction. In other words, do business in crooked countries at your own risk, but you can be your own police or army as long as it doesn't take part on American soil or with participation of any government officials.

The concept of sovernty has always been geographical - exceptions have been made for ships and a foriegn embassy. But even there they have talked as if they were "foriegn soil." Maybe sovernty needs to be extened to include 'registered' property (like documented vessels) not just geographical real property in defining sovernty. Or maybe the unit of sovernty should be the citizen rather than property or geography. But I don't see a way to make these workable in ways that diminish the conflicts.

No matter what is done, there will be injustice extant to the degree that there are unjust governments. You choose policies that are rational and moral based upon which will bring the greatest justice. In the long run you can't get a lasting structure that will be much loftier or grander than the intelligence and literacy of the populations living in them.

Post 109

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 5:26pm

Jon has cleaverly pulled me back into this endless debate, after I had resolved to go away for three weeks.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. As most thinkers use the term "anarchy", it implies philosophical nihilism. For example, anarchy means "no rule". And anarchists tend to emphasize "dispute resolution" over defending justice. Rothbardians, who tend to be intellectually impoverished ideologues, think "anarchy" represents the highest and most profound insight in political philosophy.

In contrast, "government" implies objective standards of conduct. For example, "to govern one's actions" implies careful deliberate choice. Business organizations are governed by their charter; the flight pattern of a ball bearing dropped from the third floor is governed by the law of gravity.

I don't hate government. I want government to respect individual rights, as opposed to pushing people around coercively "to prevent chaos". So I start with the idea of limited government, without taxation, and think about circumstances in which self interest creates incentives for long-term trusting relationships. Such relationships are the ubiquitous product of commerce.

As to history, Jon's speculations are fair play, although I don't share his conviction that Hitler was launched to conquer the world. Nazi Germany was, after all, a disintegrating socialist economy. The Big State worshippers who dragged the West into the Second World War--primarily Churchill and FDR--were infatuated with what they believed to be the efficacy of raw coercive power wielded by the state. Viewed from their perspective, Hitler may have seemed 10 feet tall, just as authoritarian liberals in our times viewed the Soviets.

The primary historical point I want to make is that the Second World War was non-defensive from Britain's perspective, and without reasonable doubt, non-defensive from the perspective of the United States. That's why public opinion polls consistently reported 85-90/10 margins against fighting Hitler. Regular folks were fed up with Wilson's bloody adventure to "Make the world Safe for Democracy".

(Edited by Mark Humphrey on 3/31, 5:34pm)

Post 110

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 5:54pm

Jon,

I was writing the post above while you posted your last message, which I didn't see till too late.

You said,

I am saying is that the conditions for use of force abroad (war) must be more expansive than just to defend U.S. soil from attack and imminent attack, according to the logic of the Objectivist justification for government.

Let me take that apart just a little. First take out the word "war" that is in the parenthsis. Now, assume that the State department or whoever makes a reasonable effort to get the foriegn government to return stolen property. If they don't I have no problem with using the marines to take back stolen property. That's not the same as bombing a city. I don't deny that it can escalate, either in a series of small steps or quite suddenly to the point where our country is threatened. If that happens it is time for war.

I arrive at that just as you did - the right to keep what you own. We aren't killing innocent civilians in this scenario or dropping bombs on cities. Each act against a person or against our country is met with a proportionate response. If the foriegn government at some point makes such a serious threat that we have to go all out (or close to) in our need to defend our nation (not someones property which is different) then war will happen but only in response to imminent threat. At any time the aggressor nation can choose to back down.

But I also think that we should tell tourists to travel at their own risk for some countries and not to bring in the marines if it isn't a theft of national proportions. But I'll be honest and say I don't know what principle drives the dividing line.

On the issue of rights, yes, you have the right to defend yourself in an alley from an attacker and it doesn't matter if that alley is in New York or in Moscow. But to have the right doesn't mean you act as if there weren't dangers that are local to a situation. I don't count on rights to keep me safe and won't walk in some areas and in other I will.

We have a lot of problems with getting our government to defend our rights properly here at home. Expecting the U.S. to defend them in other countries when the foriegn government won't is not reasonable.

Having said that, I don't think you are precluded from engaging in self-defense anywhere, but in a foriegn nation you are just on your own in getting away from being punished by the foriegn nation for doing so. You only give up retaliatory rights in the U.S. In otherwords this isn't an issue of the monoply use of force being granted to the U.S. government when you are overseas. But the laws are a muddle and would the U.S. extradite you for 'robbing' a foriegner when you were actually getting your money back? Or come to your aid over there? You would probably be in deep shit, the state department is made of individuals that would sacrifice any private concern to avoid a negative response from any foriegn government.

Post 111

Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 5:56pm

I tried to express in an earlier post that if government were financed voluntarily, people would be unwilling to pay for foreign "wars of liberation". That people favor a political program doesn't mean that they're willing themselves to pay for that program. They want the program installed only if other people can be forced to finance it. That's why withholding for two very popular programs, social security and medicare, is not voluntary. People spend their own money on things they want for themselves.

It's true that Standard Oil and other companies had their rights trampled by Middle Eastern thugs who expropriated their property. But it doesn't follow that our government should therefore try to defend the rights of Americans outside its jurisdiction. For once a state does so, it creates unending opportunities for wars. Wars are costly and deadly. Far better to restrict a government's activities to defending the rights of its clients within its territory. And the first step toward achieving that goal is to make sure the government in question is defending, rather than abridging, the rights of its client-citizens.

Post 112

Sunday, April 1, 2007 - 9:15pm

It's very late, I'm tired, and I only have one nit to pick (and I apologize if it's already been picked) ...

Jon L.,

This suggests a division between the pragmatic (practical) and the moral.

But pragmatism isn't equivalent to practicality -- as you seem to suggest. See Peikoff (OPAR) on "pragmatism" for details.

Ed
[sometimes just having enough time and energy to be a nit-picker]

Post 113

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 1:21am

1] Bob Woodward, "State of Denial". Best analysis of Fall 2002 intelligence was that Saddam & Sons were 'really' about 5 years away from a nuclear weapon, not 'imminent.'   But, in 2007, I can 'add 2002' and '5', so the words we are having a hard time finding in our mouths are 'Thank you, GWB, and the heros who are doing the heavy lifting.'   In 2007, nobody is the least concerned about what Saddam & Sons will or will not do with the resources of Iraq, because in 2007, they are decomposing.

2] In 2002, Libya was on the State Dept terrorist crap list.   In Dec 2003, 3 days after Saddam is shown crawling out a spider hole, Qaddafi coughs up what almost 20 years of sanctions failed to convince him to do.   April 2004 IAEA Report details Libya's WMD programs, including nuclear, biological, and chemical.    Saddam had long been suspected, even before the 91 Gulf War, of offshoring much of his WMD programs, but moot.   Bush got a twofer, and because of petty domestic politics in the country, the press hardly mentioned it. Today, Libya is no longer on the crap list.   Thank you, GWB, and the heros who are doing the heavy lifting.

3] Summer 2006, Hezbollastan provokes war with Israel. Ensuing crap fight miraculously does not widen into broader regional conflict. Iran,. Syria do not reinforce Hezbollastan, and do what their nutbag tyrant leaders rant 'must be done' to Israel.   (It's Hezbollastan. There is no more Lebanon if it has no control over force within its borders. The region North of Israel is Hezbollastan.)   So, why no broader conflict? After all, Israel, the occupier of Palestine, 'must' be driven into the sea. What better time to do it, then when America, the evil empire, is all tied up, helpless, overcommited, bogged down in the q-u-a-g-m-i-r-e-i-n-I-r-a-q? Well, gee. Maybe those tyrants don't actually believe the Western Press.   140,000 troops in Iraq? Or is it 300,000 troops/planes/warships/logistics in the M.E.?    Apparently, instead of the yet 20th year of standing around the crab spread at some Renaiissance Weekend Event for a "What Can We Do?" - nothing-fest, somebody actually grabbed the M.E. by the belt, and there already existed an eight lane highway straight from Ike's MIC directly to the M.E., daily filled with outbound traffic.   So, for that wider regional crisis that didn't happen last summer? Again, thank you GWB, and the heros who are doing the heavy lifting..

4] Saddam&sons making any deals with Syria, let bygones be bygones, Ba'ath Socialist Party to Ba'ath Socialist Party, the real prize is Israel?   Not unless channelled through the Dionne Warwick 800 number. Again, thank you GWB, and the heros who are doing the heavy lifting..

5] Kurdistan/Kurds in northern Iraq, complete success.   We as a nation that tolerated same by our leaders owed them for past acts of national cowardice. See Kerrey's March 24, 2003 "I could go to jail for saying this but" confession. Again, thank you GWB, and the heros who are doing the heavy lifting...in a war on the West that started decades ago. The Western disease is unfinished business, ending wars too soon, going all the way back to WWI and the failed states left behind the vacuum left by the colonies once in thrall to the Ottomans.

6] At least up until now, the heros doing the heavy lifting in Iraq are demonstrating to throat slitters and carbombers that this time, America doesn't run in the face of those tactics. This isn't Beirut. This isn't Somalia. This isn't Iraq 1996. Guaranteed, a lesson will be learned by someone in this struggle.   If that lesson is, "The West is yet again ultimately unable to deal with throat slitting and random carbombing in the streets of Baghdad, this time", then the lesson learned will be "and won't be able to do same in Baltimore, for the same reasons."   Only, there will be nowhere to 'Pelosi-up' when it is in the streets of Baltimore, and we will just be waiting on the whim of others who have already demonstrated their 'Death to America!' wishes. So, thank you GWB for having the good sense to walk across that street to confront thugs.   Throat slitting and car bombing is not the world we want to hand over to politics, it is not in our best interests, not even the best interests of our very own surrender-monkeys who think they can somehow ride this tiger for petty short term domestic political gain.

Post 114

Saturday, April 14, 2007 - 9:58am