The operative word in “collective defense” should be “defense”. In other words, the military exists to protect our homeland and citizens against imminent attack from a foreign power, or to provide appropriate retaliatory action against a foreign power that has attacked us. “Defense” does not apply to attacking nations that have not attacked us and are not an imminent threat to attack us because we think that we can run their affairs better than they can. That’s called “conquest”, or more accurately “imperialism”.

I suspect that the “collectivism” Mr. Bowen was referring to was your tendency to view the disparate cultures of the world as collective groups (“Islamo-fascists” in this case) and preaching a foreign policy approach that caters to this world view. “Islamofascists” are no more an accurate description of any coherent group than “yellow hordes” or “the great unwashed”, and the solution you propose (increased military intervention) is generally just a form of authoritarian empire-building that will not serve our individual interests for either security or prosperity.

At least, that’s the gist of what I got from Mr. Bowen’s comments. If I’m wrong, I’d be interested in hearing differently.

Do you only consider something “truth” if it comes from your brain or from someone who agrees with you? This post is about my *opinion* which is based on the truth as I understand it based on evaluating what I consider to be credible sources and considering arguments of all sides. If my understanding of the facts changes or I am confronted with an argument which is persuasive enough, my opinion will change accordingly. Whether or not I am wrong or not is for you (and other readers) to decide. I’ve been wrong before, I’ll be wrong again, and I’m sure you will be wrong as well. One thing I promise is that I do not write things that I do not believe to be true. I do not try to change the facts to fit my viewpoint.

I am also quite certain that Brad and others who write at The Liberty Papers use the same approach. Just because I slightly disagree with what Brad believes to be true does not mean I think he is lying; he simply comes to a different conclusion than I do on this particular issue.

Now to your point about defense issues. Am I understanding you correctly that you do not believe the U.S. should have a military? If this is your definition of a “collective defense,” then yes, I do support collective defense. Providing for the common defense of the U.S. citizens is one of the few truly legitimate roles of government (according to our constitution at least). I have no problem with the concept of citizen or state militias but I also believe the U.S. military is completely legitimate and necessary for national security. I do not believe for a minute that the Nazis or Imperial Japan would have been defeated with a citizen’s militia alone.

And although I believe that the U.S. military is legitimate, that does not mean it has always been used for legitimate purposes. I agree with Kaligula, there is no reason why we should have troops in that many countries.

Of course, limiting the war to the people who actually attacked us doesn’t give the president the justification to ignore the Constitution, consolidate and wield unquestioned power, and generally do whatever he wants regardless of the cost. And that’s what the Iraq war has really been all about, and it’s what the “War on Terror” has become.

We were attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda, and only al-Qaeda. The Taliban, although they did not apparently actively participate in 9/11, were sheltering al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. The only enemies we were therefore justified in pursuing were al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Al-Qaeda had no operational presence in Iraq prior to our invasion. Al-Qaeda has no operational presence in Iran or Syria now. Therefore there was no justification to attack Iraq as part of the war on terror (there were more reasons not to attack) and there is no justification to attack Iran or Syria in the future.

As for your argument about there being “groups” that are willing to attack us, your argument is speculative generalization, frankly, not a little racist. I’m sure somewhere in the world there are black people who would like to do harm to me because I’m white. Does that mean white people are justified in attacking any black person they see without provocation and/or regardless of whether that person poses an actual risk because someday that black person might pose a threat to white people? Such a rationalization is ridiculous and indicative of a lynch mob mentality. Your descriptions of the situation essentially paint all Muslims with the same brush because of the actions of one group (al-Qaeda), it seems predicated on an overreactive panic to 9/11, and your pro-intervention arguments reflect this.

As for your jibe about asking the 9/11 families, I don’t need to. We have reasonable proof that the attacks were committed by al-Qaeda and abetted by the Taliban, they’re the only enemy that 9/11 has any bearing on, and the reactions of grieving and traumatized family members of victims from 9/11 have absolutely no bearing on an argument for intervention against enemies that had nothing to do with 9/11. The grief of 9/11 families does not impart to them any more or less expertise on the dynamics of foreign policy than anyone else possesses, so their opinion has no more or less inherent weight than anyone else’s.

It’s rather sad that your only argument is an ad hominem attack and a spelling nazi comment.

What you left out of your explanation was that Bin Laden isn’t Afghani, so why is quite natural for him to care?

Yours truly,

Tristian

I didn’t claim to want an intellectual conversation as politics is about coalition building and tactics not Truth. You posted this exercise under the guise of searching for truth, but merely recycled agitprop phrases.

Politicizing truth is a Marxist tendency so it follows that you embrace collectivist arguments on ‘defense’ matters.

Now, if you will concede that you are a collectivist on issues of defense, I might take the time to offer a deconstruction of why socialism fails. Hayek doesn’t stop at the shores.

Europe, South Korea, and Israel can finance their own security and protect themselves.

We aren’t going to win the War on Terror without understanding the underlying alien ideologies and cultures we are facing. Do we truly know our enemies? The demographic distribution, concerning where they are located and how many they are.

The US never truly intervened with the Soviet Union and they collapsed mainly due to economic problems. Saudi Arabia, other Arab countries, and even Osama Bin Laden*, could have taken on Iraq and restored independance to Kuwait. Although, I really don’t see how restoring Kuwait’s indepenance makes the world better off. Let’s also not forget how the US sent economic AND military aid to Iraq immediately before the Gulf War (between 1983 and 1990).

This doesn’t really contribute much to the argument. I just wanted to point out that I don’t think that statement is justification for intervention.

*Bin Laden offered to help, but the Saudis turned him down favoring US assistance, which ultimately sparked Bin Laden’s ideas of attacking America since “American infedels” were in the Muslim Holy Land.

You may very well be right. U.S. interventions may have stoked the flames of hatred more than if the U.S. had not intervened in the Middle East. Then again, seeing as these same terrorist groups have attacked France, Spain, Russia, and other countries which haven’t been as involved in the Middle East as the U.S., you might very well be wrong. From the statements I have read from the leaders of these organizations, they want to spread their brand of fundamentalist Islam throughout the world by whatever means they deem necessary.

I would also like to point out that even though al Qaeda and other Islamofascist organizations of their ilk do not have a navy, army, or air force, it only took four small groups of al Qaeda terrorists armed with box cutters to take out the World Trade Center, a chunk of the Pentagon, and roughly 2,000 American civilians on 9/11. What could they do with a suitcase nuke provided by Iran, North Korea, or a host of other state sponsors? Al Qaeda does not need a fleet of ships, an infantry, nor a squadron of fighters and bombers to inflict a great deal of damage on an American city.

C. Bowen:

If you want an intellectual conversation, then you have to do better than calling my post “navel gazing.” You may disagree with my conclusions but I think I laid out my case quite clearly and made an attempt to back up my assertions. Mr. Fowler, Brad, and Mr. Crawford, each argued their specific points in a much more civil and productive manner. Not one of them saw fit to resort to calling me a “chicken hawk” (as you have done in the past), or a “neocon,” or any other such bumper sticker B.S. If you want to take another stab at an intellectual conversation, then I suggest you do the same and save the cheap shots for someone else. I don’t normally like to respond to cheap shots but I’ll make an exception this time since you claim to want an intellectual conversation.

Brad:

Maybe I’m just hopeful that we will reach a certain point to where the American people and our leaders will finally get serious and make the difficult decisions which lie ahead. Am I optimistic this will happen anytime soon? Not really.

I will say though that I do not believe we should have any new interventions until the Iraq and Afghanistan issues are resolved. At this point I could not support any sort of attack against Iran (for example) because, as we have both pointed out, our elected officials have been mostly incompetent.

The only reason I have any hope that our elected officials might get their act together is by the fact that in our history, we had leaders which overcame insurmountable odds in matters of war. Consider that George Washington’s army had very few significant victories against the British until the decisive Battle of Yorktown. The Union also suffered its share of defeats in the American Civil War (or the War Between the States) before finally having its decisive victory in Gettysburg. During World War II, U.S. and Allied forces suffered more than its share of defeats; the D-Day Landing alone cost some 10,000 American lives. My point is that all of these could have just as easily gone the other way.

Mr. Crawford:

I think I only heard President Bush use the term “Islamofascist” on one occasion (this offended CAIR and he never used the term again). I wish he would do more to identify the enemy instead of use the generic term “terrorism” and “terrorist.” Terrorism is a tactic and does not effectively identify the enemy. You make a critical mistake if you think we are only fighting against al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. Killing bin Laden will not mean our fight with Islamic extremists (would you prefer that term to “Islamofascists”?) is over.

Regardless of your unwillingness to see this threat, there are such groups (which sometimes do coordinate their activities) who wish to kill you and me. Ask the families of the 9/11 victims if they believe Islamic terrorism is a myth.

To your second point about the generals and there reluctance to intervene except when absolutely necessary, I agree. But not all generals agree on matters of war and peace either.

Tristian:

I can’t believe I am going to take the time to respond to your dumb ass comment but what the hell. No, bin Laden did not attack the Soviets because he hated the Soviets’ “freedom.” The Soviet Union wanted to spread communism to Afghanistan with military force. Bin Laden quite naturally did not want to be under Soviet control and retaliated. Its really not that hard to figure out Tristian. You are easily the weakest link among those who have already commented (notice that the word “weakest” is spelled w-e-a-k-e-s-t NOT w-e-e-k-e-s-t). Jackass!

Hey Gomer,

I have a question for you, did Osama bin Laden fight the Soviet Union for 10 years because he hated their freedoms?

What? Silence? You are the weekest link, goodbye!

Military intervention as a first option has historically been the policy of tyrants, diplomatic incompetents, and armchair warriors…and that’s why most presidents have been smart enough to avoid it.