Randy Barnett’s Wall Street Journal column in support of the Iraq war presents a very weak case on behalf of the war against a very strong presumption against going to war. The administration and its supporters did not discharge the burden of proof necessary to justify waging a war. The satellite photos of trucks that Colin Powell displayed before the UN Security Council and the rumors of al Qaeda connections (never substantiated) were inadequate to the case. That’s why the administration has had to change its justification for war over and over. Here’s Randy’s reasonable case against war:
Many libertarians, and perhaps most libertarian intellectuals, opposed the war in Iraq even before its inception. They believed Saddam’s regime neither directly threatened the U.S. nor harbored or supported the terrorist network responsible for Sept. 11. They also feared the risk of harmful, unintended consequences. Some may also have believed that since the U.S. was not attacked by the government of Iraq, any such war was aggressive rather than defensive in nature.
Here’s Randy’s justification for advocating the war:
Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.
I don’t see how that justifies overcoming the presumption against war. Viewing something as a part of a larger war against holy warriors bent on murder (who, wicked and evil as they are, haven’t killed as many Americans as the numbers of innocent Iraqis killed by U.S. government forces) is not the same as showing that it is in fact a necessary part of such a war, nor even that that wider war is worth pursuing through such means. I admire Randy greatly as a legal scholar, a friend, and a good person, but this essay did not reveal him at his sharpest.
It’s long, long past time to pull the troops out — in an orderly but expeditious manner. Unlike some, I don’t wish for it to fail and for chaos and mayhem to ensue. But I am as convinced as ever that the decision to invade was a terrible mistake and that the continued occupation will likely make things worse.
P.S. Sorry for the somewhat garbled text earlier. Jetlag does terrible things to the mind.
Since I am not being bombed nor is my supply of tea and cookies threatened by war I can afford a diversion into philosophical domain.
Since the first Neanderthal threw a rock at another Neanderthal every war has been over resources. And since the first shaman justified the rock-throwing by invoking spirits of the ancestors the true causes for war were distinguished from the true pretexts and hidden from view.
And although the true causes for events may be hidden from us there are no events for which there are no true causes. Why are we playing around? Does anybody really think that this war is an exception to all other wars and is not being fought for resources?
The fact that we are insofar unable to secure access to resources over which this war is being fought does not allow us to ignore the fact that we need them. Internal Iraqi political structure aside, the world must have access to carbohydrates.
We must pacify the place. As they say in China, do not grab the tiger by the tail, and if you did do not let go.
BRAVO!!!!!!!
I think that this war was about many things, including “flawed intelligence,” neoconservative arrogance, and more. But no, I don’t think that it was about resources. If the American authorities had wanted to get Iraqi oil, they could have bought it. Instead, they imposed an imbargo. This war is an incredibly expensive and self-defeating way to get access to oil. Oil is a commodity. The best way to get access is to buy it on the market. It’s not only more moral. It’s a whole lot cheaper.
It’s a little unfair to call Barnett’s article “a very weak case on behalf of the war,” since the point of the article was not to lay out the strongest justification for the war, but merely to point out that being against this war is not a necessary element of libertarianism.
In other words, Barnett was not attempting to answer the question, “Was the Iraq war justified?” Rather, his essay asks (explicitly): “Does being a libertarian commit one to a particular stance toward the Iraq war?” He responds: “The simple answer is ‘no,'” and the rest of the column is a defense of that answer, not of the war itself.
On my reading, Barnett’s only goal was to lay out a prima facie case for why a reasonable libertarian might have supported the war in the first place, without forfeiting the title “libertarian.” I think the column is a little off in parts (e.g., I’d put “rule of law” in place of “restitution to victims of crime,” but it’s Barnett, so I get it). And, like Julian says, it’s a little like scrambling to board a sinking ship. But speaking as someone who did at one point think a prima facie case for war (not necessarily regime change or occupation, but disarmament) had been made without ever feeling like I was sacrificing my dedication to liberty, I think Barnett’s piece makes a reasonably good case for that (very narrow) point. That is, Barnett seems to be saying, “We all agree on the law, but this is a question for the jury.” On some questions, the facts are clear, the theory is clear, and if there were a libertarian court of law, we’d move for summary judgment and win. This case is different, and reasonable libertarians can (and did) disagree on the proper application of theory to facts.
Unless we’re willing to line up the libertarians who initially supported the invasion (e.g., Brink Lindsey) and read them out of our movement, Barnett’s piece doesn’t seem too controversial.
What’s more important than the war is the attitude. I find that the less I worry myself about anyone’s idea of ‘community process’, the better I feel. The conservatives have their ‘community process’ of puritanism and the ‘right to work’ and pay dues and ‘pursue’ happiness and ‘fight terror’ (meaning non-cooperation). The hippies and faeries have their ‘community process’ of drug abuse, food stamp fraud, child pornography, and sexual servitudes that only remove them from the arabs by the fact they don’t wear berkas. I guess you might say I’m developing a sort of anti-process that longs for the ‘old days’ when the terrorists were Americans. And where are those militias, anyway? I would have expectod them to take out the Petronas Towers by now
I take Greg’s point. Libertarian principles set, at the least, a very high burden of proof on anyone who wants to justify a war. But it needn’t rule out all use of military force. The facts do matter. I listened to the case for invasion and I was not convinced, which meant that I had to be against it. Others — obviously — were convinced. But by now the facts are piling higher and higher that the intervention was a mistake and the case on its behalf is looking ever weaker. Yes, ex ante and ex post are two different perspectives. But I think that Randy and others who agree with him should make the case that the war was, in fact, justified, and not merely that they thought it was (which is evidently true and certainly was a conclusion reached in good faith). The questions are: 1) was it justified?; 2) whether it was justified or not, what path is the best path forward? I think that the answer is 1) no, and 2) a clear commitment to withdraw, with a timetable either specifying a set date or a set of clear and unambiguous benchmarks, with the process starting very soon and leading to total withdrawal. The continued presence of foreign troops has made things worse, not better, in much (but not all) of Iraq.
The prudential case against intervention was a strong one. It’s not all a matter of deduction from first principles; it’s a matter of evidence and also of reasonable expectations. The war has been a disappointment for its advocates and there should be a lesson in that for them.
Tom, what would be a â??fact that intervention was a mistakeâ? that would not be crossed over by victory? Victory needs no justification, since we do not see victory all kinds of arguments arise over why we shouldnâ??t have gotten involved in the first place.
Yes, I understand that trading for resources is better than fighting for them. Nevertheless, as Goethe’s Mephistopheles noticed:
War, trade, and piracy, allow,
As three in one, no separation.
Itâ??s still a war over Iraqâ??s resources; even thought insurgents are convincing us at the rate of over 100 million dollars a day that trading for Iraqi resources would have been a better idea. And yes, libertarians knew it all along.
Still, what an excellent opportunity 911 presented! Squandering it and not invading anyone would have been such a waste! Who could have thought that toppling an unpopular regime would result in such a quagmire! We thought that hornetsâ?? nest was dead and dry, ripe for the kicking!
We placed our bets and lost. I say we make a sad face and prepare do withdraw meanwhile increasing our pressure on the enemy. I still believe that our ability to evolve, adapt and succeed in war is better than theirs. But I recognize the necessity to show some movement towards withdrawal in order to maintain our moral high ground and ride the political wave to where politicians want to ride it.
Our political process is understandably slow, no one will be upset if we deliberate for a couple of more years, please, just a couple of lousy years!
I would suspect that the war in Iraq is over resources, but not in the classic sense. The war in Iraq destroyed the Iraqi ability to produce oil, and led to record high prices. This does not sound like the classic scenario of war for resources. The embargo against Iraq also prevented the Iraqis from selling oil, and also led to high prices. Again, if one was looking at the American self interest in needing a good, cheap source of oil, this was self defeating.
But what if you look at the self interest of the politicians involved? The embargo was imposed by a Texas oil man, George I. His interests benefited from embargo, since he was able to eliminate a competitor and raise prices. The war was started, for no logical reason of national interest, by a Texas oil man, George II. His interests benefited from war, since he was able to eliminate a competitor and raise prices.
The War on Iraq was not a war for oil … it was a war on competition.
I suspect that “Oh, come on” is a sufficient reply to such drivel…
Let me also say briefly that there is nothing in Tom’s reply with which I would substantially disagree. The libertarian presumption against war is rebuttable. Some of us thought it was effectively rebutted in the instant case, others didn’t. Now, most of us on the former side have realized we were wrong (though, in fairness to myself, I think my limited support for disarmament was less wrong given the pre-war intelligence than the neoconservative support for nation building).
So, many of the so-called “pro-war” libertarians such as myself have recognized that, as William F. Buckley noted early last year, “it didn’t work.” As Tom notes, the only relevant question left is how to withdraw efficiently and effectively, while leaving as little chaos as possible. The war, for better or worse, is a sunk cost, and we do ourselves no favors by continuing the effort.
Oh come on, we can still do it! It ayn’t that bleak, we can win yet and all we spend on war goes to our businesses anyway. Not like we are running out of money or volunteers for the army.
A couple of more years of sustained effort and we can turn things around. If we withdraw now we would not be able to gather ourselves to invade other peoples’ countries for another 30 years! We belong in the Middle East and there we must stay.
> they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists
I have doubts as to the connection between Iraq and Islamic jihadists. I would be grateful if others could post their opinions on this.
“Unless we’re willing to line up the libertarians who initially supported the invasion (e.g., Brink Lindsey) and read them out of our movement, Barnett’s piece doesn’t seem too controversial.”
I’m willing.
JR
If “libertarianism” means whatever “movement” Jeff Riggenbach and his pathetic brethren happen to call home, then please, please count me very much out.
Greg,
Iâ??m afraid that the war is more than just a sunk cost, as I know you in particular are flirting with the support of military action against Iran. Itâ??s as if the past five years of mendacity on the part of the Bush administration never happened for you. The quickness with which you want to â??move onâ? is laughable. I donâ??t want to turn this into a Maoist re-education camp, but until former supporters like you fully understand where and why you went wrong, I envision a comment thread exactly like this in four years, only weâ??ll substitute â??Iranâ? for â??Iraq.â?
Jude,
I understand completely where I was wrong, and I fully admit to it. And while the war might be “more than just a sunk cost,” it is at least a sunk cost, such that the argument that we have to continue there to make up for past mistakes is erroneous, which is the only point I was trying to make.
As for Iran, I do see it as a separate fact situation; one in which we engage in the same sort of thought process (i.e., “We have a presumption against war. It can be overcome given certain facts. The facts here are X and Y. Therefore, the presumption is (or is not) effectively rebutted).”
If the facts justify military action against Iran, I’d be for it. If they don’t, or if a less violent act would achieve substantially similar results, I’d prefer that. But my first priority in these kinds of questions is what will serve America’s interests (i.e., safety, liberty, way of life)? A nuclear Iran might be intolerable given its current leadership’s antipathy toward the West, and longstanding ties to terrorist groups (I’m not sure even Justin Logan or Justin Raimondo could deny that). As such, if it’s true that Iran’s ties to terrorists and its functioning nuclear program represent a clear and present danger to the U.S., and a military action would substantially reduce that danger, I’d probably be for it, despite any failings of the current administration.
The ultimate point, of course, is that each of these issues is fact specific. We all agree that war is bad, and is to be avoided. But I don’t think it is to be avoided “at all costs.” And I don’t think that just because one administration was wrong about one country’s potential threat, that all administrations are wrong about all potential threats.
I don’t see how a reasonable person could not be open to military action if the facts warrant it, whether “Bush and his cronies” messed up or not.
Out of curiosity, what is the number of innocent Iraqis killed by U.S. government forces?
Gil, no number is too great when freedom and our way of life are at stake. Should we go against our interests when lives of innocent foreigners are at stake?
You saw how easily Greg N. overcame his presumption against war. All you do is cook up some facts and he is on board. Just be sure to cook some quality, juicy facts, last time they were a bit fast-foodish…
Now this is just getting tiresome. No sane person favors killing innocent people, even in actions that would otherwise be just. But no reasonable person believes that, in a world that has aggressors, innocent people can be completely protected from just acts of war fought in self-defense.
Given those two premises, I don’t see the controversy. Who, if given a set of facts that convinced them of a legitimate threat, would not opt to try and prevent an attack? And if innocents are killed, the blood is on the hands of the original aggressor, not the innocent party who fights in self-defense.
I didn’t say that as long as the government “cooked up some facts” I’d be on board. I said if there were such facts, I’d support military action in self-defense. “Orkster”: if you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in imminent danger, would you not take action to prevent it? Only the insane or suicidal could say no.
Yes I would take action.
This country has been involved in dozens of military campaigns over the course of the last 40 years. Would you argue that most of them were a response to imminent danger? Most of them were presented that way â?? no reason to assume that future conflicts would be presented any differently.
I would argue that our government is actively and effectively (well, generally effectively) uses our comparative advantages â?? strong military and short memory to pursue our nationâ??s interests while cynically shedding crocodile tears for those whom their governments could not protect.
Ok. So we both agree that some wars in some circumstances are justified. And we agree on what circumstances justify those wars. At worst, we have differing opinions on whether any given fact meets the agreed-upon standard. That’s fine with me, and I wont say you’re “not a libertarian” (a distinction that gets less and less appealing the more I read what other self-described libertarians actually believe) because we disagree.
And do we bring all the Iraqis who trusted us home with our troops? They will pay the price, I fear, for our hegemonic hubris. What is our responsibility to them?
Tom wrote:
“Holy warriors bent on murder (who, wicked and evil as they are, havenâ??t killed as many Americans as the numbers of innocent Iraqis killed by U.S. government forces)”
I’d really like to know what that number is.
Even approximately.
This has been interesting. First, I read Randy’s piece and no where in it did I see him stating which side of the war question he himself was on. Perhaps there are facts outside of the article that make clear Randy was “for” the war, but the article itself doesn’t.
I opposed the Iraq war because I didn’t see any “clear and present” danger. Of course, I’m not privy to the ‘evidence’ that our representatives (Bush and Clinton among them) were. Still, I felt that the hurdle for a pre-emptive war should be that “everyone” who wants to know, can know. That was, I believe, the point of Secretary Powell’s presentation to the UN, though we’ve since learned that it was based on bad analysis.
That said, Iran does present a different fact set. I keep hoping that covert operations will do what needs to be done there, though as time goes on, that hope fades. Personally, Iran having a nuclear bomb probably isn’t enough to convince me that overt action is justified. But that fact plus even the slighest hint that they would use it – or allow it to be used – probably would. It doesn’t bother me too much that they have a gun, just like mine. It does bother me when they seem to point it at me. With gun ownership comes responsibility to act, well, responsibly. I’m not sure the Iranian government is capable of responsible behavior over an extended period of time, but that doubt is not sufficient – for me – to go to war. If it were, I don’t think we could have survived the Cold War.
Just how close one allows one’s opponent to get to pointing the gun at them before invoking the right of self-defense is a matter where reasonable people – even libertarians – can differ. And that, I think, was the point of Randy’s piece.
For Gil, there are a number of groups that try to keep track of those numbers. None of them are completely reliable, if for no other reason than the difficulties of counting people who have been killed in a conflict in which various sides have interests in either maximizing or minimizing the numbers.
Here are a few sites:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
The latter offers minimum and maximum numbers of 67905 and 74296 civilian deaths.
A major difficulty is counting those killed as a result of U.S. or coalition military action and those killed by insurgents, terrorists, sectarian militias, kidnappers, criminal gangs, and others in a context of conflict occasioned by the invasion. Some have suggested that the relevant count is the difference between what Saddam would have killed, had he continued in power, and the numbers that have been killed since the war began, but it seems that even by that calculation (hard as it would be to undertake), the numbers killed by terrorist attacks, crossfire between coalition forces and armed opponents (whether you call them insurgents or terrorists), and U.S. military strikes and actions is surely greater than would likely have been killed under the continuation of the Ba’athist dictatorship.
Regardless of the calculation or the questionable reliability of some reports, the numbers are far, far, far higher than the numbers of American and European civilians killed by terrorists from the region, thus undercutting the argument that the war in Iraq is a legitimate part of a wider war against such terrorists.
Randy’s point is well taken that many people saw it that way at the outset and supported the war for that reason. But I think that enough evidence is now in to convince them that they were mistaken.
I was somewhat familiar with those estimates.
But, Tom wrote “Innocent iraqis killed by U.S. government forces.” “Innocent”, not “Civilians” and “By”, not “As a result of”.
I accept that most of the civilians were innocent; but not the confusion of “killed by” with “killed as a result of”.
Tom, you’re usually pretty careful about the way you phrase things. This time, I think you may have let your preference affect your choice of terms in a way that is misleading.
It may be that U.S. government forces directly killed more innocent Iraqis than terrorists have killed in the west, but I somehow doubt it.
I think Barnett’s article is correct about support for the war being compatible with libertarianism. Unfortunately, I think that many libertarians (myself included) fell into the same trap that statists do by allowing wishful thinking about government competence to sway their policy judgments.
It would have been nice if we could have eliminated a dangerous tyranny and replaced it with a liberal democracy; all the while limiting the number of innocent casualties to a very few. It would certainly have furthered our national security interests and been consistent with libertarianism. Unfortunately, it seems to have been beyond our actual capability.
Points well taken, but…..(as Gil notes) in this context “civilian” is a very good proxy for “innocent,” as the military (and Iraq Body Count)distinguish between civilian and “insurgent” dead. Moreover, if you add up all of the innocent (or “civilian”) Europeans and Americans killed by “Islamic jihadists” over the past decade, including the 9/11 attacks, it would be difficult if not impossible to equal the numbers that have been killed as a byproduct of U.S. bombardment and other forms of military action, not including terrorist actions that were “made possible” by intervention. I am rather confident of the truth of that statement. Even if the conservative number of seven per week through 2005 given by the U.S. military were accurate and held for the whole period, that would put the numbers killed in routine actions at several thousand, and when added to those killed in the initial military attacks prior to the declaration of the end of military hostilities (and therefore prior to the terrorist attacks on civilians, meaning overwhelmingly coalition-caused), which IBC put at 7,000), the numbers would be larger than the total killed in 9/11 and in London, Madrid, and elsewhere by terrorists.
One more useful site on the topic: http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
This may be off topic a little, but, I believe the biggest cause of the Iraq War was the breakdown of the separation of powers.
I am very disturbed at the fact of how the majority of Congress gave the President a blank check to invade Iraq without debate. Certainly, this can be consider as a Congressional malpractice. They had plenty of time to get their own facts and give a more thorough opinion. But they didn’t. And, now, most of the early supporters are voicing that they have been duped with bogus intelligence. This is an outrage. The opposing Congressman or Congresswoman that voted against the invasion, did so with the same evidence. It is a crying shame that MSM are not taking the Congress to task for failing to do their job.
I don’t agree with the finger pointing and name calling that is happening now in the US Government. To me this is nothing more than tabloid Jerry Springer type drama. What I like to see are televised Judicial hearings of every Congressperson, that gave the President the blank check, to explain why they did it. Bogus intelligence aside.
The US will always have an Executive Branch that will see the need for political and military intervention somewhere for all kinds of reason. This is why the US citizens need a US Congress to do their constitutional duties.
As for Randy’s article, I am really not interested if Libertarians are Pro-War or Anti-war. What I am interested in is if all Libertarians agree that, War or No War, it is done so according to the US Constitution. To me, the invasion of Iraq should not have happen. Our government purposely made Hussein our boogie man.
Jeff Riggenbach has a point. But for a variety of reasons, while official libertarianism is willing to exclude certain people – try getting hired for mid- to senior-level position at a libertarian outfit while proclaiming your commitment to trade tariffs, subsidies, and minimum wage laws but your general agreement with all other libertarian positions. But, generally, the war question is not a litmus test. And that’s in part because official libertarianism gets a signficant portion of its money from conservatives.
One of the reasons I left the official libertarian movement was because it became obvious that while the movement was generally willing to exclude Lew Rockwell-types (which it should) it was not willing to exclude pro-war types. Nothing is cut and dried. One can disagree about invading Afghanistan, although one cannot disagree that it’s been pretty poorly managed. But not so with Iraq.
Does anyone disagree that if the war went right we would not be talking about this? That our source of discontent is not the way we went to war but our lack of swift victory?
Of course we would be having this discussion. But it might not be so animated if the costs were not so high. That’s the way people are. Why is that surprising or even remarkable?
Orkster: I disagree. If the war had turned out swimmingly, well then I would still have a problem with it as an unjustified use of force. But my libertarianism turns more on the utility of policy rather than some a prior rights theory. So I’d been on slightly weaker ground.
That said, the way you frame the question reveals more than you mean, I think. I don’t think it was by mere luck of the draw – an incompetent administraion, for instance – that we ended up in this mess. My principle objection to the war from the outset was that what ended up happening (a quick 6 week march to Baghdad, followed by an interminable and bloody civil war and occupation) was going to happen.
An example from another policy realm less fraught with disagreement among putative libertarians: I oppose univeral health care precisely because I think it will be disastrous for the country and for the people who lack the means to escape such a system. Does that mean I can predict categorically that universal health care could work? Of course not. There’s no logic that makes successful universal health care an impossibility, as one might generate from a deontological view of libertarianism.
So I don’t think a successful outcome in Iraq was in any way likely, and I think it’s a real mistake to think that, if only we had not disbanded the Iraqi military, or if only a competent president had been in charge, or if only we’d not been plagued by neocons, things would have turned out different.