About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Friday, November 30, 2007 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff, that was a hoot! And dead on.

Sanction.

Post 21

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 5:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Michael,

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I cannot get the link to which you pointed us to work, but we can rely on your reading. For some reason, I had always remembered Rand’s discussion of active man v. passive man in that Reader’s Digest piece as applauding the active man for his contribution to the war, specifically to the liberation of Europe. I bet it was just some connection I was making as I read the article, which then fused with my memory of the article through the years.

 

Concerning a later important use of our military forces, Rand did make a spontaneous private comment, although so far as I recall, she never wrote about it. That was the evening that President Kennedy announced our naval blockade of Cuba and revealed the Soviet missiles being installed there. John Hospers recalled in an interview he gave to Liberty magazine (Sept 1990) that when Rand heard that news, she said “Good.”

 

I will repeat for readers here some personal background concerning that event, which I included in your welcome to OL this last September: 

In 1957 I was nine years old. That year was the 50th anniversary of statehood for my state Oklahoma. There was a terrific exposition at the State Fairgrounds in Oklahoma City to celebrate the occasion. The exhibition was called "Arrows to Atoms."

My folks had bought our 2-acre lot just outside the city for $600. We were building our house ourselves. It was a ranch style of 2700 sq. ft. The lot had some outstanding large oaks. But the soil was sand, and it would grow only sandburs until years of cultivation had passed. There was a good thing about that sand. As my brother and I would work in the soil, especially after a rain, we would find flint and arrowheads. My brother found one spear head. Apparently our lot had once been an Indian encampment.

Those were inhabitants earlier than our own Indian ancestors, who were Choctaw and who had been marched to Indian Territory from the South by the US government on the Trail of Tears. My father and my brother were dark. My father's hair was black and straight. At the US Air Force base where he worked as a civilian in War Plans, they affectionately called him Chief.

At the base were all kinds of aircraft, including the B52's loaded with really big nuclear bombs, ready to fly to Russia and annihilate it. The name of our state's semi-centennial celebration was fitting.

On a day in October 1962, the alert reached my father at home. His face turned white. That evening they waited in the War Room as the President announced his decision to the world.

The Soviets withdrew their missiles from Cuba, we returned from the brink without crossing, and a few years later I went with my father to his office. I remember a flag, pictures of the President and the base commander, and an inscription: "Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Prov. 29:18)

I read Atlas in autumn 1967.

 


Post 22

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 5:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The link in post #18 doesn't work because the URL has an extraneous single quote at the end. Copy & paste it into your URL textbox, delete the final quote, and then try it. Or use this link: http://fare.tunes.org/liberty/library/toptt.html

Post 23

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 8:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Jon, you suggested on Thursday that it is worthwhile to “look up what AR said about such terms as isolationism and the art of smearing.”

 

I found something she wrote about this that is very interesting. This is from an essay she penned in May 1975 titled “The Lessons of Vietnam,” which is included in the collection The Voice of Reason.

Observe the double-standard switch of the anti-concept of “isolationism.” The same intellectual groups (and even some of the same aging individuals) who coined that anti-concept in World War II—and used it to denounce any patriotic opponent of America’s self-immolation—the same groups who screamed that it was our duty to save the world (when the enemy was Germany or Italy or fascism) are now rabid isolationists who denounce any U.S. concern with countries fighting for freedom, when the enemy is communism and Soviet Russia.

 

The catch phrase of these new isolationists is a shabby little equivocation to the effect that “other countries are not ours to lose”—e.g., we did not lose South Vietnam (or China, or Hungary, or Czechoslovakia) because it was not ours to lose—i.e., the fate of other countries is none of our business. This means: other countries are not ours to judge, to deal with, to trade with, or to help. (Unless it is help with no strings attached, i.e., help without moral judgment, political appraisal, or even humanitarian concern about the results—as demanded by Laos, when it threw out a U.S. aid agency, but wanted the U.S. money turned over to the Laotian government.)

 

The purpose of this new isolationism is to play on the American people’s legitimate weariness, confusion, and anger over Vietnam in the hope of making the U.S. government afraid to become involved in another foreign war of any kind. This would paralyze the U.S. in the conduct of any foreign policy not agreeable to Soviet Russia. The first intended victim of the new isolationism will probably be Israel—if the “anti-war” efforts of the new isolationists succeed. (Israel and Taiwan are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help—not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific.)

 


Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 22, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 8:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Though it's really a side issue whether or what Ayn Rand would approve or disapprove of in contemporary U.S. foreign policy, one thing is clear from the sum of her many writings on the issue:

She was staunchly in favor of the U.S. government, including using its military, acting in the self-interest of the American citizenry.

One may or may not agree with her application of the principle to any particular case in the 20th century, but she was consistent in advocating it.

Those who argue that the American citizenry have no self-interest in having the U.S. government defeat the jihadists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and elsewhere have to contend with that principle.

Some have put forth reasonable arguments about whether, in fact, it has been in the self-interests of the voters to have the government do that in some particular cases. And, some of those are correct in pointing out that the various Administrations have been and are being wildly inconsistent in doing so and how they do so, with checkered results.

But to assert that it is never in the interests of the citizens to have the government carry out that function is, in effect, to deny that the function is legitimate. That is something that Ayn Rand would most definitely disagree with.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 25

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 12:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

When You Can't Argue..."

I often don't agree with Rand on specifics, Jon, but I openly admit this when it is so, and I stand on the merits of my own arguments.

I'd like to publicly accuse you of being the smear-artist whom you accuse me to be. I always sign any significant post of mine "Ted Keer" so that if anyone wishes to find my words at a later date he can google key words with my name. This is an intentional decision I made, not because I'm an egotist or need to be reminded of my own name, but for just such cases as this where someone decides to put words in my mouth. It keeps us all honest.

You complained:

"Ted, for a guy who posts so much on an Objectivist site, you've shown yourself to be breathtakingly ignorant of Rand's positions on other threads. [Link to one! -TK] Here, you've been true to form. I recommend you look up what AR said about such terms as "isolationism" and the art of smearing. Of course, whenever someone points out that what you've written explicitly contradicts something AR wrote, you revert to calling them randroids or implying they don't think for themselves. So nevermind."


So, I invite you to provide one example where I've ever myself used the word Randroid as a smear. I haven't. It is you who are either being sloppy or dishonest. Google "ted keer randroid" and list the results here. I also invite you to provide one plausible example where I show my ignorance of, rather than my disagreement with Rand on any topic.

Those who want to argue against Robert's orthodox Randian foreign policy position are free to do so on either the facts or the principles. So far there has been no argument from the "anti-Bidinotto" camp, just the same sort of name-calling and anti-concept bandying which Robert Bidinotto has already identified above.

(signed)

Ted Keer

PS, Jonathan, thanks for your honesty, I'm sanctioning you for it, not out of agreement with your vicarious position.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/01, 5:34pm)


Post 26

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 1:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Omygod! Robert Bidinotto -- that phony, namby-pamby "tolerationist," pseudo-Objectivist -- championing the "orthodox Randian foreign policy position"?

Oh gosh! Be still, my heart! Someone noticed!

;^)

Seriously -- thanks, Ted.

Also, it was very useful of Stephen Boydstun to quote Rand's actual words concerning "isolationism." Those who pretend that she was a "noninterventionist" will have a tough time squaring that contention against the quotation you've cited regarding her support of Israel and Taiwan.

That Rand believed U.S. national-security interests -- not some platonic absolute called "noninterventionism" -- should govern our foreign policy, ought to come as no surprise to anyone who has read "The Objectivist Ethics." And I agree with Rand.

Jeff Perren has it right. Like him, I'm not here insisting that Rand's position (or mine) is the correct one. For these purposes, I simply mean to reject the hijacking of Rand's name in support of "noninterventionism" or even "isolationism." As the quotation makes clear, that is a falsehood that we can safely put to rest.


(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 12/01, 1:47pm)


Post 27

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

Jeff, concerning Pakistan, depend on the parenthetical in this and depend on this:

Should Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal fall into the hands of Islamic revolutionaries,

we will destroy their aircraft and missile means of bombing their neighbors.

 

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 12/01, 2:07pm)


Post 28

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Stephen,

Hello and my best wishes for your continued health and happiness.

I'm sorry, but I'm only about 50% clear on the meaning of your post. Are you asserting that you personally believe we should take military action in Pakistan when and if the need arises (which would have been about three to six years ago)? Or, are you saying that you are confident the U.S. government will? If so, under what circumstances?

According to the ARI editorial you cite, it doesn't appear the U.S. will do so, in its estimation, if it hasn't by now.

By the way, I'm not sure on what basis the editorial makes several of its assertions. I've followed the issue and read nothing that would suggest the 'crisis' in Pakistan was a surprise to anybody. Nor have I read anything that would suggest to me that the Administration thought the Musharraf regime was 'good'. As always, to be sure, the President, Secy of State, et al are behaving like the pragmatists they are. If the Islamists take over, as seems almost certain at this stage, the U.S. may well help stage a coup but whether they'll be wise enough to put Bhutto in power is unknown at this stage (yet, unlikely). The likelihood of them taking direct military action in the region, at least without being invited, is, unfortunately practically nil.

So, if you could amplify your views about Pakistan and, in particular, the legitimacy (or not and when, in your view) of using U.S. military action to combat the jihadists, I'd be grateful.

Respectfully,
Jeff

Post 29

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 3:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Yes, Jeff, I'm saying that under the scenario I posed---the nuclear arsenal of Pakistan coming into the control of Islamic revolutionaries (a possible scenario for the future, nothing that has yet arrived)---the U.S. will and should destroy their aircraft and any missiles capable of dropping bombs on their neighbors such as India. This sort of preemption requires only work by our Navy and Air Force, not U.S. ground troops.


Post 30

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 3:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If Pakistan fell into the hand of Islamic revolutionaries, I would count on India taking action as well.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 31

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 5:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff: "She was staunchly in favor of the U.S. government, including [sic] its military, acting in the self-interest of the American citizenry."

So am I, Jeff. I just disagree that military attacks and occupations of foreign states that haven't themselves attacked America *are* in the self-interest of the American citizenry. I think such actions emphatically *aren't* in America's self-interest in that they make America much *less* safe (and much less wealthy). You might disagree with that conclusion, but I'm approaching the issue from the same ethical perspective that you are.

As far as your earlier snide comment about West Point, to the extent that West Point students are there because they want to help defend America from assault by hostile foreign states, they *should* be praised. I'd salute them as well.

And who ever said the U.S. military should exist but *never* be used? You're better than that, I think. As I've written, the military does exist to perform a certain function, but one *contingent* on a specific context.

Finally, regarding Rand's support for Israel and Taiwan: Did she ever call for the U.S. military to bomb or invade other countries on behalf of Israel or Taiwan? If so, then I agree with Robert Bidinotto that Ayn Rand couldn't have been against militaristic interventionism in principle after all. If not, then how does her support that answer that (side) question?
(Edited by Jon Trager on 12/01, 5:41pm)


Post 32

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon, any results on that google search to support your accusation of me calling people Randroids yet?


(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/01, 6:22pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 33

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"And who ever said the U.S. military should exist but 'never' be used?" Jon Trager

Jon,

Based on long observations, I conclude that as the de facto position of Michael Marotta and a great many other libertarians who have expressed similar views over the past few years here and on other sites. (Actually, the view expressed usually goes much further to declare the military, and the whole of the U.S. government, has no business existing in the first place.)

I happily accept your assertion that you are not among them.

I don't know your views well, but I also accept that you are an honest commentator who holds his position based on sound principles. We have, I believe, primarily a disagreement, to the extent we do, over the proper interpretation of historical events and what it is best to do in light of that interpretation.

I am not and never have been in favor of bombing other countries on behalf of Israel or Taiwan. I am in favor of bombing several countries right now on behalf of the U.S. citizens and their need for self-defense. Iran would be at the top of the list. Not only do they deserve it for past actions, but the mullahcracy represents an ongoing threat to the security of the people of the United States. I base that on nearly 30 years of observation, not least of which is their behavior in the last ten.

Frankly, I don't care much whether they are motivated by 'hatred of American values' or driven by a commitment to jihad, or anger over the CIA deposing Mossaddeq, or because "we're over there." Their actions of the past many years are not justified and they are dangerous and getting more so with every passing year. I favor doing something about it involving considerable military force.

I accept that reasonable people can disagree with me about whether that's the best way to handle the situation. But I believe a realistic view of actual people, not merely a wish for a certain ideal foreign and domestic policy (a view I'm not necessarily ascribing to you), makes that a necessity.


Post 34

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 6:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I went to an event a few weeks ago at the Independent Institute, a libertarian think tank in Oakland, California, involving libertarians Jeff Hummel, an economics professor at Santa Clara State University; Ed Stringham, an economics professor at San Jose State University; James Payne, a professor of political science, who has taught at a number of universities, including Yale; President David Theroux and Research Fellow Carl Close.

The program was critical of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, as Theroux enumerated the huge number of deaths among Iraqis, and noted that there has been a mass exodus of Iraqi citizens out of Iraq since the start of the war. In the Q&A, I asked for the respective views of the panelists on the appropriate response to 9/11.

Professor Hummel said that we should have done nothing -- that the attack of 9/11 was blowback for a failed U.S. foreign policy stretching back decades, and that the corrective response was to unilaterally withdraw from all foreign involvement, starting now. Professor Payne said that he would have sent troops into Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda, but that was all. President David Theroux said that the proper military response would be to authorize "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" in which a private, mercenary army would be authorized to go after Al Qaeda. So, two out of three respondents said that the U.S. military should not be used even in this case. I gather they might have sanctioned U.S. military involvement if the war were taking place on U.S. soil.

A word about Letters of Marque and Reprisal: As Professor Fred Foldvary notes,
Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include force used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.

"Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.

Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who were in Afghanistan.

In October 2001, Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas, introduced bills H.R. 3074, Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001, and H.R. 3076, September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. Private U.S. citizens would then be able to hunt down, attack and collect assets from terrorists who have or are planning to commit hostile acts against the U.S. and its citizens. (See Ron Paul's Press Release.)

The Founders of the U.S. Constitution included Marque and Reprisal in addition to authorizing Congress to declare war, so that in some cases, the U.S. government would not have to engage the military and have a costly war. The risk would then be concentrated on those who chose to engage in the reprisal. This empowers private citizens to protect themselves and other Americans.

The Letters combined with high rewards for the capture of terrorists would create an incentive for Americans to conduct these operations. It would supplement U.S. government activity such as seeking out and eliminating the financial networks that terrorists use.

There has been little discussion in the mass media about Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Since these are authorized by the U.S. Constitution, introduced in a bill in Congress, and provide a possible alternative or supplement to U.S. military action, there should be more discussion and then action taken on this possibility. The terrorist threat seems to me to be a good example of the attacks that the Founders of the U.S. Constitution thought would be remedied by such Letters.
- Bill


Post 35

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

That's very interesting. Thank you for writing it up. Could you tell me, please, your reaction to the views expressed, including the recommendation to issue Letters?



Post 36

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 9:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What kind of evasion is this?  Kurt, we could go through an endless laundry list of "what ifs"

I gave no endless lists - I gave a few specific examples that actually apply to the real world.  If you can't answer them, you have no argument.


Post 37

Saturday, December 1, 2007 - 9:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert Bidinotto wrote: Today, I read a very interesting article, "The Logic of Torture," by philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson.

Nominally, it's about the subject of torture; but really, it's about ethical differences—and how to think and argue effectively about all sorts of ethically charged controversies. Its lessons are relevant to the controversy I've raised about "interventionism."

Thanks for the link, Robert.  I read the article and archived it for reference later.  The professor kept to the academic mainstream with his examples from deontological and consequentialist standards.  That is the reason why I took away something of value in his presentation.  I noted with interest his identification of why disagreements often go nowhere.
Every argument with an evaluative conclusion must, in order to be valid, have at least one evaluative premise. (This is known as Hume's Law.) To persuade somebody to accept a conclusion, you must use only premises that he or she accepts. If your interlocutor rejects one of your premises, including the evaluative one, your argument gets no grip on him or her (although it might get a grip on someone else, with different beliefs and values). You will to have to back up, as it were, and argue for the premise that your interlocutor rejects. This new argument will also need to have at least one evaluative premise. If your interlocutor rejects it, you will have to back up and argue for it—and so on, until you find common ground. The idea is to show your interlocutor that he or she has inconsistent beliefs. The only leverage a philosopher has is the principle of noncontradiction.
I remember the same point from an NBI lecture on why arguing politics comes back through ethics to epistemology to metaphysics.  It all comes down to the law of identity.  From there, we can only reason together and where we disagree, we have to back up to some non-contradictory agreement. 
On the other hand, most discussions, even here, follow these norms.
http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/1946.shtml#4

(BTW:  I got five copies each of the last two NIs with your "Excuse Making Industry" essay.  I will pass them along to four people who will appreciate it and one who will not.)


Sanction: 35, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 35, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 35, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 35, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff (post #33) writes:

"And who ever said the U.S. military should exist but 'never' be used?" Jon Trager

Jon,

Based on long observations, I conclude that as the de facto position of Michael Marotta and a great many other libertarians who have expressed similar views over the past few years here and on other sites. (Actually, the view expressed usually goes much further to declare the military, and the whole of the U.S. government, has no business existing in the first place.)


Then, from Bill Dwyer (post #34):
I went to an event a few weeks ago at the Independent Institute, a libertarian think tank in Oakland, California. . . .In the Q&A, I asked for the respective views of the panelists on the appropriate response to 9/11.

Professor Hummel said that we should have done nothing [about going after al Qaeda after 9/11] -- that the attack of 9/11 was blowback for a failed U.S. foreign policy stretching back decades, and that the corrective response was to unilaterally withdraw from all foreign involvement, starting now. Professor Payne said that he would have sent troops into Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda, but that was all. President David Theroux said that the proper military response would be to authorize "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" in which a private, mercenary army would be authorized to go after Al Qaeda. So, two out of three respondents said that the U.S. military should not be used even in this case. I gather they might have sanctioned U.S. military involvement if the war were taking place on U.S. soil.


The link between Perren's and Dwyer's posts is that the Independent Institute is an anarchist organization. I went to college with Jeff Hummel and know him well: He's been an anarchist since the late Sixties. His view of 9/11 appears to be "blame America first," writ large, as: "blame America only." I believe that David Theroux is an anarchist, too. I don't know about Payne. However, the Independent Institute has taken consistently anarchist positions on virtually all issues, notably leading the charge for a completely privatized legal system and criminal justice system. (For example, they publish anarcho-economist Bruce Benson's books, such as To Serve and Protect, which promotes a completely privatized justice system, and which explicitly attacks my own retributive theory of criminal justice, as advanced in my book Criminal Justice?)

So, Jeff Perren is right: The reason this group wants no U.S. military retaliation for the 9/11 attack grows from the fact that these guys don't believe in a U.S. military -- period.

But Bill Dwyer grants them too much credit when he says, "I gather they might have sanctioned U.S. military involvement if the war were taking place on U.S. soil." Bill, that presupposes that they believe in a "U.S." -- a nation-state that has both national boundaries and a military. No, I am confident that if you'd query someone like Jeff Hummel about this, he'd reject any defensive governmental military action even against terrorism taking place in America, simply because he doesn't believe in the legitimacy of the American government.

So much for the fate of "national security" under anarchism.

But it gets even sillier and more convoluted.

David Theroux's fall-back position -- the Constitution's article concerning the federal government's issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal -- is certainly a curious position for an anarchist like him to take. Anarchists do not even recognize the validity of the federal government or the authority of the Constitution -- and hence, they cannot honestly recognize the government's legitimate authority to issue such Letters in the first place.

However, for sake of argument, let's forget the disingenuous arguments of anarchists like Theroux and concentrate solely on the merits of this "alternative," since Ron Paul (who is not an anarchist) has endorsed it, too.

Let me re-quote what Bill offered from Prof. Fred Foldvary:
"Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.

Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country, as happened with the attack by persons who were in Afghanistan. . . .The Letters combined with high rewards for the capture of terrorists would create an incentive for Americans to conduct these operations.


Now, try to follow the logic here, folks:

If the U.S. government sends its armies across foreign borders in retaliation for injuries, that constitutes "interventionism," and it is both unconstitutional and terrible, because it will lead to "blowback."

However, if the U.S. government authorizes private mercenaries to cross foreign borders in retaliation for injuries, and offers them rewards to do so, that is constitutional; it is (somehow) consistent with "noninterventionism"; and there will be no "blowback."

Ayn Rand said: Don't bother to examine a folly; just ask yourself what it accomplishes. Well, what is accomplished by this "privatization"-of-war folly?

For one thing: delegitimizing America's armed forces as our defensive agents.

Observe that exactly the same violent actions that are declared illegitimate if performed by soldiers wearing our nation's uniform, suddenly acquire legitimacy if they are performed by plain-clothes, gun-toting gangs.

The position of both Theroux and Ron Paul is thus hypocritical and nonsensically incoherent. The idea that violent retaliatory actions by private American citizens authorized and rewarded by the U.S. government, and conducted inside Islamic nations, would not be perceived as "intervention" or lead to "blowback," is completely ludicrous.

But more ludicrous is the idea that a mercenary army operation (which would be just as enormously expensive to fund as would a U.S. military operation) could be as effective in America's defense as the combined resources of the various branches of the American military -- including the vital intelligence-gathering capacities of the CIA, NSA, etc. Try to conceive of how a mercenary group could possibly have gone after the well-armed al Qaeda operation inside of Taliban-run Afghanistan. The Taliban regime had clearly been giving aid and sanctuary to al Qaeda. Imagine the scale and cost that the reprisal operation would have required. Well, you don't have to. . .because it was conducted by the U.S. military. Using satellite intell, CIA and U.S. Special Ops guys on the ground directed massive U.S. bombing runs against al Qaeda and Taliban forces, driving them from power and their mountain sanctuaries.

Anybody think Blackwater has that kind of hardware and firepower, folks? And frankly, what would be their motive for doing it -- unless they were paid billions? You think the families of the 9/11 victims have that kind of cash on hand? And if the rewards and bounties are to be paid for by the U.S. government anyway, why not send in the U.S. military and be done with it?

Even more ludicrous is the idea that this privatization of warfare would not lead to wholesale atrocities on a horrifying scale. The U.S. military operates under strict rules of engagement and within a publicity fish bowl -- as we have seen from various episodes of troop misbehavior, such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and others. No national military is under more critical public scrutiny. The actions of our soldiers are held to account and must take place within certain rules and parameters, the Geneva Convention being among them.

But under what constraints would private mercenaries operate? On foreign soil, how could their actions possibly be monitored and controlled? And what happens to America's reputation when a gang of hired thugs dispatched from the U.S., paid by our government, but under no legal supervision, shows up in Iran or Turkey or Sudan to "right" some wrong for private U.S. citizens, by means of unconstrained violence?

I do agree with Bill that such Letters could and probably should be issued by the U.S. government, but only in certain small-scale cases in which a private victims had grievances against individuals in foreign nations. The Marque (marching orders) for such operations would have to be strictly defined, and their issuance come only after some verdict in an American court of law had determined that a crime had indeed been committed by someone using a foreign address as a safe haven. (The famous Ross Perot-funded mercenary operation that rescued kidnapped U.S. citizens from the Middle East comes to mind.)

But Letters of Marque and Reprisal would be utterly useless for large-scale military actions against hostile governmental regimes (Iran, the Taliban) and their agents; or against international terrorist networks (al Qaeda) operating in multiple nations; or against large, formidable gangs operating on foreign soil (Mexican crime lords, the Mafia, etc.).

In the broader context of national defense, then, this whole "Marque and Reprisal" proposal is phony, through and through. Nobody could really expect mercenary operations to serve as a successful alternative to U.S. military operations. And privatizing military ops abroad would give a green light to atrocities committed by private U.S. citizens, which would rightly enrage foreign nations. This proposal is merely a diversionary effort, a smokescreen issued by anti-American-government anarchists (and picked up by naive people like Ron Paul), intended to delegitimize U.S. military action on foreign soil in defense of American national-security interests.

That "noninterventionist" Ron Paul, in order to avoid "blowback," would keep American troops on bases inside the U.S., but authorize, reward, and dispatch mercenaries to fight America's battles in foreign lands, underscores the monumental incoherence of his thinking. The man is utterly disqualified to address the number-one issue confronting any commander-in-chief: our nation's security.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 39

Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bob excellent analysis! I can't even imagine how their logic squares with sending in private mercenaries as not resulting in "blowback". If these self-proclaimed non-interventionists want to be logically consistent about "blowback", the only position they can take with consistency is pacifism.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.