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 unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 7:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. Machan,

You wrote:

"Because the idea that it amounted to what the military of a free country should be doing, namely, protecting the rights of the citizens—in other words, defending the country from aggressors—simply wasn’t credible."

What of the argument that in todays world of global interaction, the announced intentions of the arab radicals and the events of Sept 11, 2001 that we cannot wait and simply react to events as they happen, but must be proactive and prevent them from happening? And the argument that the troublemakers are always the totalitarian states and democratization of these totalitarian states will make the citizens of the US safer? Haven't the Iraqi people shown through their participation in the recent election that they want their country to be democratic? And didn't Iraq under Saddam lose a war, which he caused by his own aggressive acts, and then refuse to comply with articles of surrender? He continued to try to shoot down American planes whenever he had a chance for 10 years. He slaughtered thousands of his own people under our very noses. He plundered his own people and the wealth that was given to Iraq to feed his own people. And strategically, isn't it a good idea to wage the war against terrorism right in the middle of the countries that support the terrorists? In the long run, aren't we well advised to draw out as many of them as we can early on, defeat them without question as encouragement to the moderate factions among the middle eastern countries. And isn't the participation of the Iraqi's in their election a good indicator that these moderate factions exist?
Saddams constant belligerence to the west and our impotence to deal with it encouraged a similar attitude in the region even if it cannot be proved that he directly collaborated with Bin Laden. His support of terrorism in Israel and in his own country simply could not be tolerated in the context of our own war on terrorism. I might be more inclined to agree with you if the first gulf war had not happened, that is if Saddam had not caused it to happen. Perhaps the US's mistake is not that we took out Saddam now, but that we didn't take him out before. I do believe that ordinary humans anywhere in the world deserve rescuing, if possible, but in this case I believe the actions of the US in the present Iraq war can be supported by consideration of our interests alone.

Post 1

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 11:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with Mike Erickson, put simply, the world will be a safer place in 10 years with a democracy replacing a dictatorship on an oil-rich zone like Iraq.

Do you have to wait for a direct, concrete threat? Given today's technology, wouldn't that be too late?


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I do hold that only when a country's military aggresses against another, may the other deploy force to defend itself. There are, of course, some gray areas, for instance, when a threat is clearly discernible, epistemologically certain enough. But these are rare cases and if the aggression isn't clearly identifiable and we initiate force, we open the door to innumerable "precautionary" measures against people in all realms. But freedom means not initiating force against others and only using force against them when they initiated force against you.

Post 3

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 3:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor,

I agree with your article completely. It's a shame that our view is not the popular one on this site. Your contributions to SOLO are wonderful and I appreciate them greatly. Thank you.

(Edited by Bob Palin on 2/01, 4:06pm)


Post 4

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 5:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I’m having a hard time with your position, Dr. Machan. You categorize our actions as “embarking on military aggression … against a dictator like Saddam Hussein” as “we initiate force” on poor old Saddam. This seems to ignore the fact that it is Saddam who is the aggressor. He’s a serial aggressor against neighboring countries and a continual aggressor against his own people. As Erickson as pointed out, he has refused to abide by the terms of the cease-fire imposed as the result of past aggression. It is Saddam who is the aggressor.

 

If you take down an aggressor for harming a third party, like a cop does, you are not an aggressor. Now, I understand you don’t want us to be that cop. And there are good reasons to consider in that regard. But that’s a question of prudence – labeling us an aggressor and an initiator of force implies we are the violators of rights. Such a categorization makes questions of prudence relevant. Rights trump such considerations. From previous posts, I thought your argument was along the lines of maintaining a policy of prudence by limiting our involvements as much as possible. Now it appears to be a moral condemnation against fundamental rights-violations themselves.

 

I'm not clear on your viewpoint. Do you see what’s bothering me?


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dr. Machan, thank you for your clear explanation of why the government of a free people should not engage in military actions against states that do not threaten the citizens that government is sworn to protect. Reading your article was like inhaling pure oxygen.

Government derives any legitimate power from the consent of its citizens, who cannot assign powers or rights that they themselves do not possess. It is OK for me to rescue another who is being assaulted on the street, if I choose to risk my life to render assistance. However, it is not OK for me to destroy the houses and murder the residents of the neighborhood in my campaign to collar the villain engaged in aggressing against an innocent.
For clearly, those residents themselves have rights that must be respected.

When the American State (it's not a government) engages in non-defensive military crusades abroad, it violates rights on a massive scale. It murders thousands of helpless foreign people like so many lemmings--people who have committed no crime against any American, but who who happen to live in a foreign zone that American politicians feel must be "rescued" or "re-created". The American War State destroys property that these poor people depend upon to maintain their survival, thereby imposing on them much suffering and hastened death. At home, our State oppresses its own subjects through the poverty-inducing effects of taxation, through the draft, and through additional restrictions on American freedom.
Far from defending individual rights, the War State assaults those rights wholesale.

In addition, the political slogans hoisted aloft by the War State's cheerleaders are every bit as inaccurate and dishonest as the promises and slogans created by politicans to advance their domestic programs. In both cases, the classic pattern is: a crises is invented by the political class to justify another, new rights-violating extension of government power. When it becomes obvious that the crises was fictitious, politicians invent new justifications for their program, and downplay talk about the original fiction. Still later, when the program inexorably fails to meet its new, revised purpose, politicians again rewrite history. I did not originate this observation.  Thomas Sowell did, except he discerns this pattern of fraud as concerns domestic programs, although it applies to all cases of illegitimate extensions of government power. Of course, many defenders of both the War on Poverty and The War on Terrorism are sincerely convinced of the merits of their own, favorite government program. But their understanding is in error.

Saddam Hussein is a bad man. That he was a dictator who deserves appropriate punishment is clear: he dragged his subjects into a non-defensive war, financed in part by our beloved American State, that caused the wrongful deaths of some 2 million people, plus an assortment of other oppressions. Bringing this dictator to justice, however, is not an American responsibility. If some Americans want to donate money or risk their own lives to try to secure some higher level of freedom for Iraqi's, they should be free to do so.

However, we face a nearly overwhelming intellectual and political struggle to regain our own freedom, right here in the United States.


Post 6

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 11:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've no intention of climbing back onto this treadmill, other than to note what utter crap is going down here. Tibor says:

"But freedom means not initiating force against others and only using force against them when they initiated force against you."

Oh please! So we wait till the force is initiated against us, even when we can see it coming? Anyone here able to grasp the concept of preemptive retaliatory? Anyone here realise that we are no longer in Jefferson's time when intercontinental wars were unleashed by ships that took months to get anywhere?

Jesus Christ! I say again, it's amazing who needs instruction in the basics of libertarian principle, let alone the realities of modern warfare.

Galt give me strength!

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 2/02, 12:49am)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 3:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If your body guard takes down an aggressor who is harming a third party but not you, your body guard is not doing his or her job. I do not dispute for a moment that Saddan Hussein is no "poor" fellow (and it would be more civil if this kind of view were not imputed to me, but alas keeping such jibes out of these disputes may be difficult). What I dispute is that Saddan Hussein aggressed against the United States of America; ergo, the US military had no justification going after him, even if innumerable others did. Contrary to the bumper sticker, the US marines are not the 911 of the world. They are part of the 911 team for Americans when they are attacked (or clearly enough about to be attacked).

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 3:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz, please control yourself--the language in which you argue belongs in a white trash bar, not on SoloHQ.

Post 9

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 6:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I’m sorry to see you don’t get my point. To use your example of a hired bodyguard, if he doesn’t stick to his job but rescues a damsel-in-distress, does he become the aggressor? That’s all I asked! I’m well aware of your conclusion and what you want your bodyguard to do or not to do. I’m sure you’ll fire the guy! But to call him the aggressor instead of calling the women’s attacker the aggressor, does seem to be a bizarre description of the events.

(Edited by Jason Pappas on 2/02, 3:05pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 10

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 6:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I thought this was a very good article and agree with it for the most part. It is not America's job to save the world, but only to defend itself. I have mixed feelings on the Iraqi war. Yes we need to fight the war on terrorism using military force, but where does it end?  What is our exit strategy? It was right to attack Iraq because Saddam broke the agreement which ended the previous war. We declared victory in this war a long time ago. Why are we still there?

Post 11

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 9:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It isn’t that such rescue missions are in principle wrong, but they may not be conducted by the military that already has its job specified.
Leaving aside the fact that it wasn't merely a rescue mission, it was for national defense: In this sentence looks like all you're saying is that you didn't like who did the job, not that doing the job was wrong. But elsewhere you make statements that imply that you think the job was wrong. So I find your position unclear. What precisely is your point?

Further, you seem to take for granted that this wasn't for national defense, even though that's a point of contention. I'd expect an argument for that given that your entire article is resting on that premise.

And I agree with Jason that your use of the word "aggression" is bizarre (that was one of the places that contradicts your statement above - you call it a "rescue mission" before, but later you say it's an act of aggression).



 


Post 12

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 9:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Has anyone considered this.  Even those who totally oppose the war, and those who support it, DO agree on thing such as:

Social Security is immoral
Public Education is immoral
There is no need for a department of agriculture or labor ...just to name a few items of complete agreement.

Since these alone would be both extremely valuable as well as difficult to eliminate anytime soon, perhaps we can (all) concentrate on what can possibly be done to bring this about?

Just a thought...  I do disagree profoundly with some of these anarcho-libertarians, and would support Objectivism being kept independent as a philosophy, but you may even find many Christians who support the above (for instance, they can then run their own schools as they see fit).


Post 13

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 12:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor - you wrote:

"Linz, please control yourself--the language in which you argue belongs in a white trash bar, not on SoloHQ."

Last time I checked, determining what does & doesn't belong on SOLOHQ was the prerogative of me, Joe & Jeff.

Last time I checked, the word "crap" passed muster, especially when earned.

That said, I'm sure I *would* be more at home in a white trash bar than around the statist stench of academia where ever-so-polite folk teach the most vicious, insidious crap imaginable.

Linz

Post 14

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 5:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, February 2 - 3:33amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
If your body guard takes down an aggressor who is harming a third party but not you, your body guard is not doing his or her job.


Now widen the context.

The aggressor happens to be a known member of the Mafia (or any other terrorist organization) who have been terrorizing the town for years and have already killed a number of your relatives and friends (remember the many American lives shot, bombed and murdered over the last decade or so, around the world ?)

Would that consideration change any bodies view
?




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 12:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, me the spreader of statist crap! That is just what I do, spread it all the time in my class rooms, my academic books and papers, my presentations at conferences! I am famous for such deeds, indeed. You really nailed that one, Linz.
        And since when is suggesting that something doesn't belong on SoloHQ--that it, one shouldn't talk a certain way on this forum--in any way suggesting that those who own it haven't the right to determine what goes in it? Moral criticism doesn't imply robbing someone of his or her sovereignty!


Post 16

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 12:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Settle down, Tibor. I wasn't suggesting *you* were *that* kind of academic. I do suggest that a white trash bar would be a more savoury environs than contemporary academia. Certainly for me. It'd be much more honest for one thing.

Not that I'm entirely sure what a white trash bar is.

Nor am I asking you to surrender your sovereignty—just reminding you who makes the rules here. The fact that it isn't you doesn't compromise your sovereignty. And if we're ever so precious as to ban the word "crap" just because you think it belongs in a white trash bar, I fear this is going to become a rather dull place.

Ain't gonna happen.

Linz

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Thursday, February 3, 2005 - 9:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor writes:

Liberty is indeed a worthy goal for the US government to champion and pursue, but not by means that undermine that very goal, namely, embarking on military aggression, even if it’s against a dictator like Saddam Hussein.


As somebody else pointed out above, the notion of "military aggression...against a dictator" is incoherent. Force used against those who initiate force cannot be characterized as aggression.

I disagree with the rest of your piece, Tibor, because "the initiation of force" -- at least as Rand formulated it -- incorporates what she called its "derivatives," including "fraud and coercion." "Coercion" is defined as the threat of force. Rand rightly, in my view, regarded coercion, the threat of initiated force, as a violation of rights. The reason is clear: Normal life is impossible in the face of coercion, a "clear and present danger" to one's life and well-being.

So was Saddam in fact a coercive threat to us?

In the context of 9/11, when we had seen the consequences of terrorists using foreign territories as "safe havens" to launch direct, deadly attacks on Americans on American soil;

in the context of Saddam's past history of murderous aggression against his neighbors and against his own people, showing his total contempt for the rights and sovereignty of others;

in the context of his known and even acknowledged past manufacture and possession of WMD;

in the context of al Qaeda's known efforts to obtain such WMD for use against us;

in the context of his known meetings and associations with thugs and terrorists, including the fact that al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists such as Zarquawi were using his nation as a base, with his tacit compliance;

in the context of the international legal conditions set down at the cessation of the Gulf War, which required this thug to account fully for that WMD and to allow unhindered international inspections;

in the context of his ten-year refusal to comply fully with those inspections and accountings;

and in the context of his known plotting to assassinate George H. W. Bush...

...pray, tell: What MORE would it take to define such a man and regime as a "coercive threat"?

Protecting us against such individuals is the President's central constitutional responsibility as Commander in Chief. In exercising that responsibility, he must act on the best intelligence and information he has available.

Prior to the war, all the Western intelligence services -- even the UN itself -- stated with certainty that this thug had and was hiding WMD. Given that belief, Saddam's record of aggression, his terrorist associations, and in the wake of 9/11, what therefore requires explanation and justification is NOT our invasion to neutralize the bastard.

What requires explanation and justification is the refusal or failure to do so -- and opposition to such a self-defensive undertaking.

In my view, it would have been an act of criminal negligence on the part of the Bush administration to fail to take pre-emptive military action against this coercive menace. President Bush deserves not condemnation, but the undying gratitude of all Americans for his courage in standing up against international criticism and pressure on behalf of Americans, their rights and their safety.

Post 18

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 10:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert, I too disagree with Machan's reasoning, and am glad about the invasion of Iraq. But what is your opinion on whether Iran or Saudi Arabia etc. would have been a better target at this time?

That is, if someone had given you the power to decide on military action, what country would have been your favored first target?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Friday, February 4, 2005 - 11:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A fair question.

On the one side, the argument for "Iraq first" (after Afghanistan) might include or even hinge on the belief that, from a military standpoint, it was an easier target -- lower-hanging fruit, as it were. A strategy of making an object lesson out of Iraq for the rest of the Arab world, particularly the Islamicist portion of that world, and planting a democratic system in their midst as a kind of model -- it makes at least plausible sense, even though it's a tall order.

The argument for doing Iran first is that it's the ideological mother ship for Islamicist terrorists. On the downside, a much tougher military nut to crack, at least according to what I've read. If you have to take military action like this, you can't afford to fail; and the mission in Iraq arguably is LESS likely to fail than would have been going after Iran militarily. In addition, the Islamicists in charge of Iran already face formidable citizen opposition. Attacking that nation might backfire by rallying nationalist support of the regime. Better to work with the anti-Islamicist underground there, and help them overthrow the mullahs themselves.

Saudi Arabia is a more complicated mess. Sure, they are a funding source for Wahhabism globally; but they are also a huge source of our oil, and the royal family is also battling al Qaeda. This harmony of major interests, and the instability of the regime, means they are more tractable to U. S. pressure. Better to push the Sauds in our direction, then, rather than push them out of power and perhaps hand it over to even more radical Islamicists.

And you didn't mention Syria...

We can't afford to target all these countries at once, or even in a closely timed sequence. That's why I think the Bush administration figured it would be best first to target Iraq, a nation which had already provoked global condemnation, which (at the time) appeared to pose an imminent WMD threat, and whose military defenses had been shattered during the Gulf War. Low-hanging fruit, as I said. Then after you depose Saddam, you try to stabilize it, nudge it in a more pro-Western direction, like Turkey, and use that to scare and pressure the rest of the Arab world to stop harboring terrorists.

Will this strategy work? It's very difficult, but the Iraqi elections give us reason for guarded optimism. If the Bush administration pulls this off, in the face of such overwhelming global opposition and interference, it will go down in history as one of the great strategic success stories of all time.
(Edited by Robert Bidinotto on 2/04, 11:38am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.