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.