Comments on: Libertarians And The War

By: Radical Times

Radical Times — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 06:36:11 +0000

Al-Qaeda has regrouped in Pakistan and our military is stuck in a civil war in Iraq. Unlike Iraq or Iran, Pakistan has nuclear weapons. 45% of the foreign fighters in Iraq are said to have come from Saudi Arabia.

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 02:07:14 +0000

I’d be willing to bet that it’s a very small list. I mean, even if there was a convincing libertarian-friendly argument for going in originally, I just can’t imagine any rational libertarian arguing now that it was a great idea.

By: Thane Eichenauer

Thane Eichenauer — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 01:14:29 +0000

I just wonder if there is a list of these “pro-Iraq war Libertarians” (it pains me even to type that phrase). I seem to remember that Eric S. Raymond apparently was one of them – but he hasn’t posted online in quite a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond#Opinions_on_technology_and_political_issues

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 19:56:31 +0000

Pre-emptive war could be considered self-defense if an attack from an enemy was actually imminent…not potentially imminent (like with the USSR during the Cold War) or theoretically imminent (like 5-10 years down the road as with Iran or Iraq). But for a pre-emptive strike to qualify as self-defense, the evidence of an imminent attack would have to be solid not just beyond a reasonable doubt but beyond any rational doubt. Clearly Bush’s attack on Iraq did not fit that criteria…either in hindsight or at the time…but that’s not to say that it’s impossible for a pre-emptive attack to be an issue of self-defense. The instances where it would qualify as such, however, are likely to be very, very rare.

By: A Rocket Scientist,

A Rocket Scientist, — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:01:16 +0000

His premise about pro-War libertarians is blatantly false. There were zero Islamic fundamentalist of any consequence in Iraq before the War. There would still be zero Islamic fundamentalist in Iraq today if we had not invaded Iraq. And, there would be zero Islamic fundamentalist in Iraq in the future, as long as Saddam had been in power.

There are now more “new” Islamic fundamentalist in Iraq and several other “new” terrorist groups in Iraq (ref. President’s State of The Union address where he announce there creation), which is a direct consequence of our invasion. Maybe I don’t understand the big picture, and why it is a good thing to create more Islamic fundamentalist.

Pre-emptive War, is not self-defense. Just think about how much more like War is in a world where everyone believes in preemption. Neither side waiting to see if it comes to blows, so they both start swinging and claiming self-defense. And both are right, in a preemptive world.

By: UCrawford

UCrawford — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:59:13 +0000

I don’t think it can be effectively argued that invading Iraq meets any libertarian goals or is compatible with libertarianism. The case for Saddam’s Iraq being part of some “pan-Islamist” movement involving al-Qaeda is sketchy at best and contradicted by most of the evidence we do have, so the self-defense argument is compromised. However, most of the people I’ve heard advancing that idea also tended to believe that the lack of evidence of a Saddam/al-Qaeda link just meant that Saddam was good at hiding it. Same with the WMD argument…the common refrain I’ve tended to hear is that any chance that Saddam was pursuing WMD, no matter how infinitesimal or unsubstantiated was sufficient justification to go in and the complete lack of WMD found does nothing (in their minds) to weaken that justification. Solid evidence (or the utter lack of it) doesn’t factor into the equation because the people who were for invading Iraq on the grounds of “self-defense” generally advocated that position out of irrational panic and ignorance based on what the President told them. So any libertarian arguments supporting the invasion are likely to be fatally flawed.

If people were looking for a libertarian case for pre-emptive war, I think a better example would have been Afghanistan pre-9/11 (since bin Laden was there and had already attacked us twice), or Pakistan now (since al-Qaeda is operating in their territory relatively unmolested). But Iraq is pretty much a non-starter to have a discussion about libertarianism and pre-emptive war.

By: cfountain72

cfountain72 — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:26:17 +0000

I understand there may be some differences between the party line and rank and file Libertarians. But straight from the lp.org website:
“While American public opinion has radically changed about our continued occupation in Iraq, the President wants to send a “surge” of troops to Iraq, while adding nearly 100,000 new members of our armed forces to the ranks. The Democrats donâ€™t seem poised to do anything which will substantially change our presence in Iraq. It is time for U.S. forces to withdraw from Iraq as quickly as possible in a manner consistent with the safety of our troops.”