After a member of the Lewrockwell.com blog posted a rejoinder (of sorts) to my pointing out (1, 2) the immorality of another lewrockwellite calling for (or offering a toast to) the killing of American soldiers, I got quite a flurry of comments on both postings, some reasonable, others truly bizarre.
In the new lewrockwell.com posting, Ms. Karen DeCoster (a regular lewrockwellite) stated of a posting that cavalierly called for killing American soldiers, “I’m not so crazy about the Rogers post either, but I say ‘it’s not for me,’ and move on.” That’s certainly an interesting response to such a call. And since many of her friends are denying that the posting of Mr. Rogers was a call for killing American soldiers (after all, it didn’t contain the sequence of words “Kill American Soldiers”), one wonders why Ms. DeCoster had to distance herself from his call.
Hi Tom, this is an issue to troubles me. I certainly don’t want to see anyone die, especially not American soldiers. My dad was a colonel, so I learned to respect our military early on. However, I don’t want us to be in Iraq. While I don’t want the brutes and savages over there to win, I also don’t want us to be able to claim victory, as it would only make more adventures like it more likely. Every time I hear about an American dying in Iraq I am upset, but I also hope on some level that it makes us more likely to pull out. I don’t know if this has been coherent, but then it shouldn’t be, as my thoughts are somewhat jumbled. In any case, if you have any thoughts that might help to clarify the situation, please post.
Maestro,
Those are in fact very good questions and quite coherently put.
One shouldn’t hope for the killings of American soldiers, but if one is killed (or some other calamity happens) one should hope that the right lessons are drawn. I agree that the war was a foolish mistake that should not have been undertaken. I listened quite carefully to Secretary of State Powell’s speech to the UN and found myself unconvinced of the case. As there should always be a presumption against going to war, if it’s not justified, then one should oppose it.
I do think that some lessons have been learned already. The appetite for further invasions is quite muted in Washington these days. I strongly hope that the elections are able to proceed (yet another reason, in addition to basic human decency, to oppose the assassinations of election workers) and that they will result in a government with some legitimacy (if not in the moral use of the term, then at least in its sociological signification) that will be able to combat the insurgents. That will make it more likely that the U.S. and its allies will be able to underake a withdrawal of their forces. Those who ridicule and hope for the failure of the elections process, such as some of the antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com writers, are merely hoping for an endless war. They pose as being for peace and for bringing American troops home, but they oppose the process most likely to bring that about.
Clearly the killing of US troops leads to increased hostility, worse racism, and breakdowns in discipline. Thus the killing of US troops in a very real sense makes the Iraq population more vulnerable to oppression by the US government and its agents. The Marines aren’t going to call down airstrikes if nobody’s shooting at them. This would tend to indicate the wisdom of non-violent resistance to any US government oppression which does exist.
Some of the rebels seem to think that inciting the USG to behave worse in order to garner local support is a good idea. Given the ability of the US to escalate the situation, this game of “Who’s more evil” strikes me as more than just immoral, but also stupid. Presumably the rebels want to govern a future Iraq that is more than a pile of rubble.
The one reason I can see for justifying attacks on US troops is if it stops the US from invading Iran and Syria. For this to be morally acceptable the expected deaths from such invasions would have to be much greater than the havoc caused by the current resistance. This is a really dicey proposition at best.
Clearly Sistani has demonstrated the greatest wisdom of all of the participants in this situation. Whenever he opens his mouth something sane and rational seems to come out. A just and rational US policy in the region should involve ensuring that he doesn’t have a “bad accident.”
Tom, I very much appreciate the calm and balanced tone of your exchange with Maestro (though you had to throw in a gratuitous slap at lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com — is this some kind of obsession?). I hope those of us who love liberty can have these kinds of discussions without resorting to name-calling.
You write: “I strongly hope that the elections are able to proceed (yet another reason, in addition to basic human decency, to oppose the assassinations of election workers) and that they will result in a government with some legitimacy (if not in the moral use of the term, then at least in its sociological signification) that will be able to combat the insurgents. That will make it more likely that the U.S. and its allies will be able to underake a withdrawal of their forces.”
But, if elections proceed as planned, and the insurgents are defeated, will that not encourage the neocons to invade Iran, Syria, North Korea, and who knows where else? You note above that “the appetite for further invasions is quite muted in Washington these days” — isn’t that precisely because things have gone so horribly wrong in Iraq? Those insurgents who behead innocents and so on deserve worse than death, but we’re stuck in a catch-22. If they are defeated quickly and easily, the neocons win (and the rest of us lose). If the insurgency gains momentum, American troops will be killed, but this reduces the probability of some future invasion. Do you agree?
GB,
What are the reasons to oppose war? Because it kills people. Because it expands state power and diminishes liberty in many ways, from restrictions on speech to violations of freedom of contract to conscription. So should one hope that this war will lead to more people being killed and more violations of liberty, in the further hope that that will make the next war less likely? That doesn’t make much sense to me. It’s the job of people who are opposed to war to make the case, not to hope (as if that made much difference, anyway) that all of the bad consequences of war would happen, hoping in turn that that would deter politicians from taking the next occasion for war.
What you are asking, it seems to me, is something like, “What if the neocons were right and war could spread the values of civil society, individual liberty, and personal freedom and do so at a relatively low cost?” Well, that would mean that at least a major part of the critique of the neocons would be in error, that the world is not as you had thought it was. And that would certainly have implications for one’s views on policy. It would mean that the neocons were right. It’s a bit like saying, “Well, what if socialism were to work and produce more prosperity without any loss of freedom, just like the socialists say? We mustn’t hope for that, because then it would mean that they were right.” If socialism were correct, then one should be a socialist, not be angry because it would be the correct theory. The same would go for neoconservatism or any other ideology. I hold my views because I think that they’re right, or at least that there are good reasons to believe them and that no others are better
Why does hoping matter? Hoping shows something about a person, but it has little direct impact on the world. I am horrified at people who toast the deaths of American soldiers, not because I think that such toasts will kill them, but because it shows what nasty people the toasters are. Further, and more importantly, if they offer the toast in the hope of convincing people to be against war, they are defeating themselves. It will have the opposite effect.
So I don’t agree with your scenario. I think that it’s already been demonstrated that this was not a “cake walk,” that it has cost lives and treasure far beyond what was predicted by its supporters, that it was based on erroneous intelligence claims, and that it was foolish and unwarranted. What we should hope for and what I support is that the elections be held (we will see if they are successful, but I think that what can be done to make them successful should be done) and that they produce a government with popular support (or at least legitimacy in the sociological sense). And I hope that that government can build a police force and an army to capture or kill the insurgents, most especially their financiers and leaders. (The latter is partly up to neighboring governments, notably Iran, Syria, and Jordan.) That is the scenario that is most likely to produce an earlier American withdrawal. Failed elections, chaos, and civil war (which are very real possibilities) are more likely to draw us further in.
As a last and small post script, I should point out that my slap at lewrockwell.com and antiwar.com was not gratuitous. They are, in my opinion, damaging the non-interventionist cause by their reckless claims, by publishing denunciations of Iraqi police recruits as traitors and quislings, and by “toasts” to the deaths of American soldiers. In my opinion, those very much deserve slaps.
Mr Palmer, as a LewRockwell.com reader I’ve never had the impression that the writers on this site view the Iraqi security forces as traitors or quislings.
They simply point out the fact that they are mostly incompetents and in some cases even criminals. They are not traitors to the Iraqi cause as much as they are opportunists. There are but a few who join up out of love for their country.
The terms quisling and traitor are from Justin Raimondo (see, for example, http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4045 ), to whom Lew Rockwell frequently links with approving remarks. Interestingly, when looking for that link I found that just today Raimondo has another rambling tour through his personal paranoias, one that repeatedly mentions (not very positively, of course) my humble self, but without any links to any criticisms of Raimondo’s absurd views and posturings. Instead, he links to a large picture of me under the link of “some pro-war types who claim to be ‘libertarians.'”. [No need for facts there, either, as I was against the war.] Loud Mr. Raimondo may be, but courageous he is not.
Tom, you repeatedly refer to the Iraqi insurgents as “evil.” I’m having difficulty following your reasoning, however, because you jumble together a bunch of indpendent claims.
Certainly, we agree (I think) that terrorists — those who deliberately target innocents to achieve political or military aims — are evil. (I trust you agree, by the way, that those responsible for Dresden, Hiroshima, the British blockade of Germany during WWI, etc., are just as evil as the 9-11 conspirators.)
So, do you call the Iraqi insurgents evil because:
(a) Anyone who takes up arms against US forces is evil per se.
(b) As an empirical matter, those attacking US forces in Iraq are the same people who are also attacking innocent civilians.
(c) Attacking US forces isn’t necessarily evil, but pragmatically, in this case, attacks on US forces will postpone the establishment of a civil society, the rule of law, and liberty in Iraq.
You seem to hold all three positions at one time or another. Now, as a libertarian first and an American second, it seems to me that (a) is flatly wrong. The other two are debatable. Position (b) mayt be true, but the evidence is far from clear. Position (c) is complicated and by no means self evident. The probability that Saddam’s regime will be replaced by one promoting “civil society, individual liberty, and personal freedom” seems to me no higher than the probability that the new regime will be an Islamic theocracy, or another secular authoritarian regime with whom the US is friendly (think Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and most of the Central Asian republics).
As an aside, I also disagree with your statement “What you are asking, it seems to me, is something like, ‘What if the neocons were right and war could spread the values of civil society, individual liberty, and personal freedom and do so at a relatively low cost?’ Well, that would mean that at least a major part of the critique of the neocons would be in error, that the world is not as you had thought it was.” As a natural rights libertarian, rather than a utilitarian, I would oppose “regime change” by force of arms even if the neocons were right.
Patrick,
A good set of problems to ponder.
I agree that “A,” when asserted without any context, is foolish. Obviously, if a soldier with an American flag sewn on his shoulder rapes you, you have a right to self-defense. The fact that the soldier is in the U.S. Army doesn’t change that. More complicated scenarios and cases could be elaborated, but the point is fairly clear.
“B” and “C” could both be true, so invoking one in one case and the other in another would not be any kind of a contradiction. As a general point, when there are two are more arguments or reasons tending to the same conclusion, one doesn’t have to choose among them, as so many (rather shallow, in my opinion) professors of philosophy have insisted over the years. Indeed, having two reasons (that are not logically contradictory or in any other fashion exclusive) to believe something should generally make us more certain that it’s right.
With regard to “B,” it does seem that the Mehti Army’s attempted seizure of power that was put down by the U.S., British, and Iraqi forces (with the clear approval of most other Iraqi political forces), should be understood differently from the jihadists and Ba’athist insurgencies. Moqtada al-Sadr sought to carry out a coup d’etat by proclaiming an Islamic Republic with himself as supreme leader and then seizing the holy shrines. As far as we know, he was not involved with the Ba’athist or Sunni jihadi assassins and beheaders (although most people believe that he did assassinate some important rival Shiite leaders). But that aside, the evidence seems to be that the organized insurgency now underway is organized precisely to create chaos, to prevent elections, to terrorize the population, and to spark a very bloody civil war among Kurds and Arabs and among Shiites and Sunnis. That’s evil in my book.
Regarding “C,” you’re quite right that we may get one or another kind of theocracy, although I doubt that it would be as scary as Saudi Arabia. It would almost certainly be far, far, far better than the chaos, civil war, and mass murder that the insurgents are offering. We shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the better. The Iraqis have a chance to elect a government that can create a situation much better than what they had or what they are experiencing now. Isn’t that something for which we should hope? We can’t know right now what will happen in two months time, but I think that the elections offer the best prospect for creating enough security and peace for the U.S. to begin withdrawing troops. Hoping things get worse and that the elections fail is wrong on many levels.
Finally, I think that the formulation of your view regarding natural rights would benefit from a some reformulation. If the reason to believe in natural rights is because humans have a nature and that nature can be known through the exercise of reason on experience, then facts matter. If socialism were to be better than free markets — if it were in fact to make humans more prosperous, more free, and happier, in all the ways the socialists have predicted — then that would mean that it was in accord with human nature. But it’s not. It doesn’t work. That’s why I’m not a socialist. What you have offered is not (if I have understood you correctly) a “natural rights” formulation of your views, but a deontological formulation of duties that are binding regardless of the consequences, i.e., that are divorced entirely from our empirical awareness of nature. The duty (not to engage in regime change by force of arms) that you assert to be based on natural rights is, in any case, not the sort of duty that I think flows directly from thinking about rights and justice, without any intervening additional information. For example, the American revolutionaries undertook a program of “regime change” by force of arms. Was that wrong? Well, you might say, “that was their own country.” What about using your own resources to smuggle arms to some oppressed groups who are trying to throw off tyranny, such as the fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto or people struggling against Apartheid? Those would also be attempts at regime change through force of arms, and in the case of, say, British volunteers assisting fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto, regime change involving a different country. Well, what if the assistance comes from a foreign state? What about the sovereignty issue? Might that not lead to more death and destruction? Yes, it very well might (but it also might not; the facts of the case would matter). Notice that what is doing the work at that level is not invocation of natural rights (the dictators who might be overthrown don’t have any natural rights to tyrannize over their people), but the fear of the consequences that would follow from a war. The attempt to deduce all of political philosophy from one or two moral truths fails. Additional content is needed, which is why history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and economics are important elements in the formulation of a libertarian political philosophy.
That said, I believe in a very strong presumption against going to war, but not simply because I believe in natural rights. It’s the additional content that makes the case, not a simple invocation of natural rights. Not only could one be a noninterventionist for other reasons than natural rights reasons, but also — and here we return to the start of your point — if the world were quite other than you and I think it is, then we would be required by our commitment to truth, the foundation of any claim regarding natural rights, to change our views. I oppose the neoconservative agenda because I think that they’re wrong about the world on many levels. It won’t do to criticize them at the most abstract level and not engage them at the more concrete levels. That’s not only intellectually sterile, it won’t convince others, anyway.
But thanks for the chance to think out loud a bit about these issues. (And do keep on thinking; libertarianism needs thought, reason, and evidence at least as much as it needs volume.)
As someone who believes srongly in natural-rights and utilitarian cases for liberty and against the state and war, I would be quite hesitant, to say the least, to support wars like Gulf War II, even if it does go “well” and produces an improvement over Saddam.
Why? Because it’s massive violation of natural rights to kill thousands of innocent people, evacuate homes, establish curfews and censorship, displace cities full of people, and destroy enormous amounts of private property. This the war has already done. Even if “good” comes about because of it — and I do think, on balance, little good will come — I would be quite inclined to oppose it, because I think it’s wrong to kill innocent people and otherwise violate their rights.
Tom, you said that you opposed going in. Now you think the US, having ousted Saddam, has a good chance to help Iraq improve greatly. You seem to think the neocons might be right about longterm consequences. Why, then — on utilitarian grounds — would you oppose the war at all?
Anthony,
As I recall, I did not write that “the US, having ousted Saddam, has a good chance to help Iraq improve greatly.” I wrote, “The Iraqis have a chance to elect a government that can create a situation much better than what they had or what they are experiencing now.” There are important differences in the two formulations.
But let’s set that to the side and look at the role of principles generally. They provide general guides to action. That’s what principles (and rights are principles in this way) do; it’s why we need them. A certain kind of moral philosopher delights in specifying situations in which we would know with absolute certainty that overriding some cherished principle would realize (or generate more of) the value on which the principle is founded. Hah!, they say. That undercuts the principle. Why have principles at all? No, it doesn’t, for we very rarely face such situations of absolute certainty and we should have some humility about even knowing how to recognize such situations.
What does that have to do with prinicples regarding war? There is, I believe, a very high (but defeasible) presumption against going to war. There are plenty of reasons for insisting on that presumption. (It is, nonetheless, defeasible; if your country is attacked, that would, under most scenarios, justify going to war, for example.) That principle of a presumption against war was swept aside in the rush to war. Too many people were convinced on too little evidence. But then, the decision was made. We went to war. The treasure has been squandered and many lives have been ended. Now what? What does the principle of a presumption against going to war tell us now? Well, it tells us, “let’s not do that again.” But it doesn’t tell us all we need to know about what to do now that the wrong decision was made. For example, our government has put a lot of people in a position of detrimental reliance on it. If they were to pull out this afternoon, many thousands of people would be executed in quite grisly ways. They include elected town council members, mayors, police officers, human rights activists, women’s rights activists, Christians, dissident clerics, etc. Do we have any obligation to stop that, having put those people in that situation? What does the principle of a presumption against going to war tell us about what to do? Also, under international law, having invaded a country, the U.S. government has a legal obligation to secure order and establish a functioning system of law and justice. Should we? How?
In my comment above I did not indicate that I “think the neocons might be right about longterm consequences.” I wrote,
“I think that it’s already been demonstrated that this was not a ‘cake walk,’ that it has cost lives and treasure far beyond what was predicted by its supporters, that it was based on erroneous intelligence claims, and that it was foolish and unwarranted. What we should hope for and what I support is that the elections be held (we will see if they are successful, but I think that what can be done to make them successful should be done) and that they produce a government with popular support (or at least legitimacy in the sociological sense).”
That is anything but a claim that I think that the neoconservatives were or are right.
My point was in response to the questions framed by G. B. and Patrick, which had to do with the foundations of our principles. If you think that the neoconservatives are right (as I don’t), you should be one. If you think that they’re not, you shouldn’t. It won’t work to suggest that you’re worried that they’re right, so you hope that there will be terrible consequences to show that they’re not, which was a suggestion at the edges of their questions. I favor precise thinking about hard matters and the issue of principles needs more precise thought.
I hope that that makes my view clearer.
>>For example, our government has put a lot of people in a position of detrimental reliance on it. If they were to pull out this afternoon, many thousands of people would be executed in quite grisly ways.
Certainly true. Unfortunately, given the story thus far, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that further USG involvement will do more than delay these executions until the troops eventually leave. The burn rate in Iraq is several billion dollars a month — money that could be used more efficiently to save lives here in the US.
One partial solution might be to evacuate those Iraqis who are likely to be killed for collaboration with US forces to the United States.
>>Also, under international law, having invaded a country, the U.S. government has a legal obligation to secure order and establish a functioning system of law and justice. Should we? How?
Given the total lack of accountability of US forces to the Iraqi people, simple considerations of institutional logic would seem to make this basically impossible.
One of the problems is that I think the neocons are mostly wrong, but not completely so. Some of their goals are good and some are bad. Some of their tactics are good and some are bad. On the specific issue of Iraq, invading was like playing with fire, it might be okay this time (we’ll see), but if you keep doing it, it won’t turn out well.
It’s now after midnight, so Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it.
The view that all the insurgents are either sadaam loyalists or jihadists is simply untrue.
Many of them are nationalists who simply do not like their country being occupied.
Do I think that this is probably in the long run interests of the Iraqi people? No. As much as I dislike the American government, I think that if most of the Arab world imitated us or let us run their countries they’d be better off. However, as someone who recognizes that people don’t like foreigners running their country, I can see why many feel it necessary to fight against us.
I don’t believe in natural rights, and personally take more from E.O. Wilson, hans morgantheau, and James Burnham than John Locke.
I doubt that the last commentator is correct. The persons taking $100 to go and kill an American may be motivated by need for money, desperation, or nationalist rhetoric. The evidence from Iraq is overwhelming that the leadership, the organizers, and the funders are fascist (Ba’athist) secret police officers, top Ba’ath party cadre, and murderously fanatical jihadis who wish to create maximum chaos, death, and mayhem. That those people are evil is almost beyond question.
In any case, as I am off to the airport and will probably not have internet access when in Austria, I am closing down the comment section, which is a shame (as I enjoy hearing what other people have to say), but I won’t be able to clean off the bizarrely pornographic suggestions some people post, not to mention ads for pornography, so it seemed best to close them down for now. Send me emails if you want and I’ll post additional (reasonable and with no suggestions of sex acts or the like) comments after I get back to the U.S. on January 4. Until then, best wishes to all for a new year of success, prosperity, freedom, and peace.