Foreign Policy and Self-Defense: Bidinotto's Facts

John, that IS the position their "nonintervention" amounts to, in practice. They just don't want to acknowledge it, because on its face pacifism is suicidal. Witness the point of view expressed by Jeffrey Hummel, cited by Bill Dwyer: We should do NOTHING in response to al Qaeda's 9/11 attack on us, because -- due to our foreign policy -- we had it coming to us.

What is this, except a rationalization for pacifism and national suicide?

The more you concretize and push the logic of "noninterventionism," the more it reveals itself as sheer lunacy. But what else could you expect of a political doctrine that is not rooted in an ethic of rational self-interest?

Post 41

Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 12:18pm

I used to be an avid reader of Liberty magazine. Evidently it takes them several months from closing the issue to its appearing on newsstands. When the response to 9/11 finally occurred in what I believe was their January 2002 issue, the coverage was 90% "we had it coming" bee ess. I came to the realization that the contributors were not primarily against a big US government, but against a big US government. As with the New York Times, I haven't bought an issue since.

Ted Keer

Post 42

Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 4:05pm

I find myself torn on Ron Paul. I see his terribly flawed rhetoric giving rise to much deserved criticism. On the other hand, I see Ron Paul demonstrate a fundamental grasp of the philosophy of liberty which is required for a proper government.

For example, speaking to the House on Nov. 29, 2001 in the aftermath of 9/11, he gave a speech that was riddled with annoying "blame America" nonsense and "let's not inflame the Mulsims" pacificsm, but his core philosophy gave rise to the following two statements:

"I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas."

That sounds like a good start, but does that make him an isolationist or a pacifist? No, because he follows later with this:

"Those who commit violent terrorist acts should be targeted with a rifle or hemlock- not with vague declarations, with some claiming we must root out terrorism in as many as 60 countries."

At the end of the day, he balances the requirement of freedom with a willingness to kill those who do us harm. I feel I would have to vote for a candidate upholding those ideals.

Post 43

Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 4:33pm

If you still believe that Dr. Paul grasps the basic philosophy that leads to individual liberty, I recommend (among other things), this:

Ron Paul on the separation of church and state

A man who can make an error that fundamental has, in my view, a questionable understanding of the philosophy underlying freedom.

Post 44

Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 9:36pm

Robert Bidinotto wrote,

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.

I didn't say that they should probably be issued. I simply said that certain libertarians were recommending their use in lieu of action by the U.S. military. Don't confuse my reporting of certain views with my endorsement of those views.

Jeff Perren asked,

Could you tell me, please, your reaction to the views expressed, including the recommendation to issue Letters?

I disagree with Hummel's views not to retaliate against the 9/11 terrorists. I've heard him express opposition to U.S. military involvement before, on the grounds that the military is funded by taxes and is therefore illegitimate on those grounds alone. But by that argument, he'd have to be against the police as well, and oppose any action they would take against criminals. I neglected to mention that another reason he gave for opposing U.S. involvement is that one can't be certain of the consequences of such intervention, which could backfire and have even worse consequences that if the U.S. did nothing at all. But that argument is also bogus, because it could be used against any decision one makes, including the decision not to get involved.

As for the employment of "Letters of Marque and Reprisal," I have no particular objection to it, but as Robert indicated, by itself it's a poor substitute for the combined power of the U.S. armed forces and its various intelligence gathering agencies.

As to the specifics of the U.S. involvement in Iraq, it may not have been the best decision to attack that country versus (say) Iran or Syria, if one is really serious about going after Muslim terrorists. The problem with Iraq is that once Saddam was overthrown, the door was opened for civil war between the various religious factions dividing that country. You cannot have a democratic republic along the lines of the U.S. Constitution in a country like Iraq. The cultural climate does not permit that kind of reconstruction.

Another thing to consider is that U.S. military power is not inexhaustible. The resources that are spent fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be used against Iran or Syria or North Korea. We need to pick our battles. Retaliatory force is not a panacea which, when used indiscriminately, can automatically protect us from our enemies; it needs to be intelligently (and selectively) applied.

I sometimes get the impression that those exhorting us to overthrow every dictatorship on the planet, on the grounds that it is a threat to our existence, think that the U.S. is omnipotent and and has unlimited resources to be used on behalf of that goal, because that's what it would take to achieve it.

It is important to bear in mind that every action, including every military action, has costs as well as benefits, and that when those costs outweigh the benefits, the action is not worth taking.

- Bill

Post 45

Sunday, December 2, 2007 - 10:37pm

Bill, that was a very sensible post, and I agree with you. To reject noninterventionism as a doctrine, which I do, is not to endorse military expeditions everywhere there is a dictatorship in power. America does not exist to be a global Mr. Fix-It. There are many bad regimes, and we don't have to feel obligated to replace them. We only need to confront those that threaten us, or are on a clear path to do so.

I reject noninterventionism because it poses an impediment to defensive military actions in such cases where they are necessary. We can always argue about particular cases -- Iraq being one. But the blanket condemnation of virtually ANY use of U.S. military force in the world is simply suicidal.

Also, I regret misunderstanding and thus misrepresenting your position as endorsing the issuance of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Thanks for the clarification.

Post 46

Monday, December 3, 2007 - 8:04am

"You cannot have a democratic republic along the lines of the U.S. Constitution in a country like Iraq. The cultural climate does not permit that kind of reconstruction." Bill Dwyer

Bill,

Thanks for responding in detail. I agree wholeheartedly with almost all of your post, with the possible exception of this. While I agree that Iraq was likely a poor first choice, and I would once have asserted the statement above, I've begun to reconsider.

First, Japan hardly had the culture needed for a democratic republic at the end of WWII, and yet we succeeded in reforming the country. That the present Administration is taking a very wrong path, very different from the U.S. then, doesn't show that it can't be done.

Second, Kurdistan is part of Iraq at present and everything I read tells me that, while far from perfect, it's doing reasonably well, sandwiched between much more irrational areas. Of course, the culture there is somewhat different from the rest of the country, but it suggests that perhaps the situation elsewhere is transformable.

Third, more modest goals over the next 20 years may be appropriate for a U.S. Iraq policy. To wit, it isn't necessary that Iraq be even as good as Japan was, just that they be 'good enough' not to harbor or give support to jihadists. Echoing Robert, it's not up to us to be Mr. Fix-It, we just have to fix it far enough so that it won't be a problem for us.

Your thoughts?

Post 47

Monday, December 3, 2007 - 8:21am

Jeff,

Post-war Japan was not torn by religious strife and militant, warring factions the way Iraq is. I just don't see our uniting that country into any kind of a stable ally. And even if there were some outside chance of doing so, it's probably not worth the sacrifice of American lives and resources.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 12/03, 9:15pm)

Post 48

Monday, December 3, 2007 - 9:18am

"Post-war Japan was not torn by religious strife and militant, warring factions the way Iraq is."

A valid point. However, the war isn't really over yet, is it? Also, much of that strife is the result of that and comes from outside sources, including al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, et al. Not all, to be sure, but Shiites and Sunnis have shown in several areas during the past several months that they can live peacefully and come to accords.

As to the sacrifice, a loaded word to be sure, I think we have little choice at this stage but to finish the job, if we want to avoid the whole thing falling apart just when victory is so close. Whether it was worth the cost in both dollars and lives to even start it is, of course, debatable. Certainly, it would have been far down on my list of places to start.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 12/03, 11:23am)

Post 49

Monday, December 3, 2007 - 1:12pm

Jeff:

I think we have little choice at this stage but to finish the job, if we want to avoid the whole thing falling apart just when victory is so close. Whether it was worth the cost in both dollars and lives to even start it is, of course, debatable.

What is without doubt right now, the cost of pulling out of Iraq is far worse than staying there. Whether it was worth the cost when comparing it as an opportunity cost (for example foregoing a different enemy) is a very difficult thing to quantify. But there should be no doubt what a disaster it would be for the West if it surrendered in Iraq. You can't change the past, thus there is no question staying in Iraq is worth it as the cost-benefit analysis has changed from "Should we go into Iraq or not" to "Should we abandon Iraq or not". Secondly, to turn a country like Iraq into a pro-west ally with United States/NATO bases there would be a huge step forward to transforming the Middle East into a region that doesn't export terrorism. As I said in a previous post, simply declaring war on Islam does nothing to stop terrorism, toppling the current governments that offer no chance for changing the culture of the Middle East to stop it from exporting Islamo-fascism is a step forward to success.

Bill:

Another thing to consider is that U.S. military power is not inexhaustible. The resources that are spent fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot be used against Iran or Syria or North Korea. We need to pick our battles. Retaliatory force is not a panacea which, when used indiscriminately, can automatically protect us from our enemies; it needs to be intelligently (and selectively) applied.

Bill I hope you don't think I'm one of those who say this. I do not think the United States is omnipotent with inexhaustible resources, as I have stated in numerous posts the United States has limited resources, and thus must deal the best blow it can against the worst enemy that is out there. However all dictatorships pose long-term threats to human civilization, but some are worse than others, and thus only the worst ones must be dealt with first considering the reality of limited resources. So I'm curious who you are addressing this comment to?

Post 50

Monday, December 3, 2007 - 5:54pm

[Hat tip to Robert Tracinski of TIA Daily, and his reader Steve Halter, for this one.]

Bill,

It looks as if perhaps the sectarian violence ("warring factions" to use your phrase) may not be so intractable, after all. (Provided, of course, that the U.S. helps the Iraqis clean the country of all the foreign fighters.)

Sistani issues fatwa against sectarian fighting.
"Sistani: Ich Bin Ein Sunni," Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters, December 2

"Earlier this week, the leading Shiite cleric in Iraq issued a fatwa that has largely gone unnoticed by the world media, but could have an impact on reconciliation and the political gridlock in Baghdad. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani forbade the killings of Sunnis by Shiites on Tuesday while meeting with Sunni clerics in an ecumenical council, and called for a renewed sense of Iraqi nationalism to replace sectarian divides in the country."

and

USA Today story on the fatwa.

Sadly, but not surprisingly, the author of this mainstream news story is less optimistic about the likely outcome.

"However, the meeting in Najaf and al-Sistani's call for unity are unlikely to affect the persistent tension between Iraq's majority Shiites and the once dominant Sunni Arab minority.

There have in the past been many attempts by religious figures from both sides, some of which involved top clerics, to end the violence but they all failed to make a difference, in large part because the violence is closely linked to a power struggle by politicians from the rival sects in a climate characterized by deepening distrust."

You can almost hear him wishing it.
(Edited by Jeff Perren on 12/03, 6:07pm)

Post 51

Monday, December 3, 2007 - 7:32pm

Ted: "Jon, any results on that Google search to support your accusation of me calling people Randroids yet?"

Ted, I'm not going to do a research assignment here. If you want to be obtuse and reply that you've never used the exact term "Randroid," that's fine. However, you've certainly responded *in that vein* when someone has pointed out a contradiction between what you believe and what she wrote.

Jeff, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I'm not an anarchist or a pacifist (nor are most "libertarians" whom I know personally). Also, I don't get what Michael Marotta is talking about most of the time.

Regarding our substantive disagreement, your manner of stating it is one I can accept from a fellow Objectivist.

Kurt: "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."

Kurt, I think you're smart enough to know how to apply a *principle* like the one I mentioned earlier. Or do you think it's a confession of ineptitude not to specifically answer every "what if" question that anyone asks you?

Sigh. Any foreign government (in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, etc.), protecting those who have perpetrated terrorism on American soil should be attacked. Americans and American companies should travel into foreign territories by their own free choice and at their own risk. Regarding the Pearl Harbor attack, I don't know because I haven't carefully considered the historical evidence allegedly proving FDR's duplicity. Have you?

Bill: "Post-war Japan was not torn by religious strife and militant, warring factions the way Iraq is. I just don't see our uniting that country into any kind of a stable ally. And even if there were some outside chance of doing so, it's probably not be worth the sacrifice of American lives and resources."

I agree with this message, but I'd qualify it with the word "continued" before the word "sacrifice."

Post 52

Monday, December 3, 2007 - 9:06pm

Jon,

Thank you for your respectful reply. By the way, I don't label myself an Objectivist. No insult (or compliment) taken, as it's understandable you might think I was.

"I agree with this message, but I'd qualify it with the word 'continued' before the word 'sacrifice.'"

Predicting the future is, I openly admit, difficult. But we disagree here. I don't think it's a sacrifice, as an Objectivist might use that term, though I acknowledge the cost is (sometimes ridiculously) high.

At this stage, here I agree with John, to pull out would cost a great deal more than I'm willing to pay. Whether the U.S. government will ever find the rest of its mind and courage sufficient to do the job right is, of course, uncertain, even unlikely. But the alternatives strike me as far worse.

I'd love it if, for example, regulations were considerably altered to allow rapid growth of nuclear power plants and domestic oil exploration. (The latter is happening to some degree in the Gulf; the first to a much lesser degree, one which will probably not see companies rushing to build plants anytime soon.)

But that is unlikely, especially given the current lunacy over ethanol, the current price of oil, etc. So, I can't in good conscience see abandoning companies who do business in the Middle East, especially since those foreign governments have no legitimacy at all. We're not talking about Yahoo getting burned by doing business in China here. U.S. security, not to mention the economy in general, are heavily dependent on oil and will be for some time to come.

Post 53

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - 5:38am

Jeff, Re post 43, I'd recommend you read The rest of the article. Your single quote taken out of context does sound bad. But not with the rest of the article. Give me a break.

Post 54

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - 7:23am

Dean,

Respectfully, I disagree. Before pulling the quote I did read the entire article, twice. The quote represents 100 words out of 564, or about 20% of a short article.

It appears in the context of chastising those who would eliminate Christmas, as indoctrinated (Paul says) by the "elitist, secular left." Trying to keep Christian doctrine out of state institutions, such as the public schools [or a fortiori, the Supreme Court], doesn't put a damper on anyone's participating in Christmas related activities.

Here's some more:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation�s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people�s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation�s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

Is the view that the source of ethics education ("morality and civility") should be churches less egregious than the views I quoted originally?

As I read the article, this is the standard hard Christian conservative view that Christianity should be the driving philosophy of the U.S. government, and society in general.

Are we to accept the false alternative of faith in God vs faith in the state?

Forget Objectivism for a moment, is this even a view that the Founding Fathers would have endorsed, as Paul claims?

[On a less important note, the rituals of Christmas are derived substantially from pagan celebrations, not Christian doctrine. (Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate it for this reason, for example.) So, even in this petty area Paul's knowledge of history is weak. The article by Christopher Hitchens that Ted referenced is much better on the subject. It actually celebrates reason and freedom over faith and church authority.]

I applaud your making the effort of reading the entire article, but I disagree that selecting the quote out of it alters Paul's meaning.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 12/04, 12:14pm)

Post 55

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - 11:42am

Then, too, the birth of Jesus had to have been in the spring, not winter, as shepherds not watch their flock by night in the wintertime - no grass to graze and too dang cold!!.... however, it would have been a conflict with Easter - so, usurpe the winter solistic and claim it as the birth-time....

Post 56

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - 5:08pm

Jeff,

You made it sound as if Ron Paul was saying "The US governtent should make Christianity the official religion". Far from "Christianity has the best morality and people who complain about Christian related celebrations at public schools are ruining the fun in the holidays."

I agree that Ron Paul's basis for his ethics isn't near yours, mine, or an Objectivist.

Post 57

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - 5:37pm

This week's Business Week has Maria Bartiromo's interviewing Ron Paul.

Bartiromo: "You want to take the troops out of Iraq, but what about Iran? What do we do if other nations turn hostile?"

Paul: "I'd treat them something like what we did with the Soviets. I was called to military duty [as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon] in the '60s when they were in Cuba, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and we didn't have to fight them. We didn't have to invade their country. But to deal with terrorism, we can't solve the problem if we don't understand why they [attack us]. And they don't come because we're free and prosperous. They don't go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we've occupied their land, and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries and then threatening a third. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? It would be absolutely bizarre if they weren't. We've been meddling over there for more than 50 years. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953; we were Saddam Hussein's ally and encouraged him to invade Iran. If I was an Iranian, I'd be annoyed myself, you know. So we need to change our policy, and I think we would reduce the danger."

I've heard this rejoinder before. They don't attack other Western countries like Switzerland, Sweden and Canada, because these other countries haven't intervened in theirs.

Your response?

- Bill

Post 58

Tuesday, December 4, 2007 - 6:42pm

Why is Ron Paul picking and choosing Western nations that have been attacked by Islamo-fascists? To list a few nations that have been victimized by Islamo-fascist terrorism:

United States
Greece
Spain
United Kingdom
Holland
Israel
Russia
India
Philippines
France
Germany
Australia

This is by no means an exhaustive list either and are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head. For Ron Paul to say we have been the only targets because we "occupy" their land is the height of ignorance. For someone running for President you'd think he'd so some homework first before making ridiculous statements like that.

Post 59

Wednesday, December 5, 2007 - 6:25am