Randy Barnett offers an intelligent defense of his Wall Street Journal column here (and in the other links at the bottom of that post). It’s still not a defense of the case for the Iraq war, but he is clear that that’s not what he’s offering. The discussion, including the back-and-forth in the comments is important and enlightening.
Please note my original posting on Randy Barnett’s article here.
The article is descriptive and non-controversial. Nothing to sink teeth in.
I have to disagree. I don’t think it was an intelligent defense at all. As Orkster says above, it was merely a description of the various tenets of “radical” libertarianism as Barnett sees them, with the obvious point that some of those positions are in tension with other positions.
He uses those tensions to then say, in effect, that libertarianism says nothing about whether thermobaric bombs and daisy cutters (to borrow from Gene Healy) ought to be used against a country that did not attack us and posed no significant threat.
This is libertarianism for the small minded. Gov’t shouldn’t regulate stem cell research and it shouldn’t collect my trash, because those are intolerable infringements on fundamental liberties. But whether government can launch a war of aggression (choice?) that many people noted would result in a 30 year occupation? Well, who can say!
Here’s what I say: If Barnett’s natural law brand of libertarianism that he’s been trafficking for 30 years can’t speak to the appropriate use of military force, then it’s not worth a warm bucket of piss.
It was just a description of approaches which might pacify a libertarian mind about getting into a war.
P.S. Thermobaric bombs are fun! You should see footage of how the pressure wave breaks bones and liquefies tissue without puncturing the skin! A person looks like half-empty wine-sack out of its box.
Lysander speaks with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. He may have “known” that Iraq “posed no significant threat”, but when both Bush and Clinton disagree, based on better information than Lysander had access to, I’m pretty sure Lysander has no idea of what Randy was saying.
Lysander, answer me this…
When, in the chain of events that leads to someone shooting someone else, do you say “self-defense is justified”?
Is it when the bullet enters your body? When it leaves the barrel of the gun? When the gun is pointed at you? When the gun is placed in the person’s hand? When the person moves to pick up the gun? When they threaten to kill you? When they buy the gun?
Does the answer change if the person with the gun is a 3-year-old? A serial killer? Your mom? A cop?
Libertarians, individually, have to answer the question. Libertarianism itself does not.
Well, I think libertarianism generally argues that people have the right to buy guns, as they are pretty useful for self-defense. So self-defense is clearly not justified at the point where they buy the gun.
Saddam had yet to do even that, and we merely suspected that he was attempting to do so.
Tom,
I just can’t see how you can be impressed with Mr Barnet’s analysis. Moreover, the comments section did include some good postings by antiwar libertarians, but the prowar posters clearly operate with premises that are inconsistent with libertarianism, and facts that are inconsistent with reality.
Nowhere does Mr Barnett deal with the accepted responsibility of a beligerent to minimize civilian deaths and damage to civilian infrastructure. The U.S. attack on Iraq targeted civilian neighborhoods, and intentionally destroyed civilian infrastructure.
Apparently some of Mr Barnett’s supporters see the Iraq War as a “liberation war” because of Hussein’s really war oppression of the Iraqi people. But American forces have killed more than 100,000 Iraqis, not the type of liberation a libertarian can be proud of.
And the results indicate the prudent case is to oppose wars of this nature. For liberation by force of arms, a better model might have been the Reagan Doctrine. But to apply it in Iraq would have necessitated supporting Shi’ite militias and Kurdish parties that are closely aligned with Iran.
Looks like we took a shortcut, declare a war, and put into power Shi’ite militias and Kurdish parties aligned with Iran (and Syria). Someone who considers this a successful policy, in line with libertarian views, is not to be esteemed as a great moral philosopher, regardless of the shortcomings of the antiwar side.
Gene,
Well, I didn’t say that I was “impressed by Mr. Barnett’s analysis.” I said that the discussion was “important and enlightening.” I do not agree with his take on the issue.
Please also note my original critique here
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/042217.php
I should have referenced that in the blog posting above (which I have now done).