But that force needs to be swift, and decisive. A decades long no-win war that leaves the ideological core of our enemy intact is totally unacceptable.
In other words, you can't fight a "war on terror" and do this, 'kay?
Posted on 01/17/2010 3:37:59 AM PST by plsjr
Bell: We think one of the main challenges facing America today is the growth of the so-called pro-military conservative movement. We believe the movement almost purposefully confuses people about Jeffersonian classical liberal thought and is far more challenging to the growing Misesian free-market ideology than the Democrats. Agree? Disagree?
Woods: I think they're both pretty awful. I [was] one of these "the Pentagon can do no wrong" conservatives until I realized a few things: (1) the contradiction at work in my holding up this one government institution as beyond reproach; (2) the fact that government lies surrounding foreign policy are especially egregious and embarrassing, if we're going to be honest about it; (3) I would have had a field day if the Soviet Union had tried to pull off some of these lies, but when it's "my" government I instead searched around for supporting evidence to back up the lies; (4) no supporter of the free market can look at military procurement and the military-industrial complex in any detail (and I am confident most conservatives haven't) without recoiling in utter disgust. And that's not to mention the unspeakable and completely avoidable devastation and loss of life wrought by this wing of the government in adventures that had more to do with fueling imperial ambition than with actually defending the country. No conservative, especially those who lecture the world about moral relativism, can support Bill Clinton's sanctions on Iraq, for example. Sanctions always hurt only the subject population. Everyone knows that. A century ago the policy would have been condemned as an act of barbarism. ... This is totally unknown to American conservatives today, who think it's "liberal" to be antiwar or to consider it overkill to spend more on so-called "defense" than the next several dozen countries put together.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybell.com ...
Libertarians who are actually Marxists? We should out them. Please name a few.
“Your analysis on Iraq is factually incorrect on all counts.”
So is yours.
So far, 4,287 American Service people have died in Iraq and another 949 have died in Afghanistan, for a total of 5246 Americans killed, to say nothing of the billions of American’s taxpayer dollars wasted, all to protect us from, what, terrorist attack? So if nothing else, all those lives and dollars were wasted in the wrong places. The last attempted terrorist attack came from, where?....Yemen.
Not one of those lives lost or one dollar spent has protected a single American from anything.
Hank
But that force needs to be swift, and decisive. A decades long no-win war that leaves the ideological core of our enemy intact is totally unacceptable.
In other words, you can't fight a "war on terror" and do this, 'kay?
Gee Hank. Why do you think Al Qaeda went to Yemen? How come they didn’t all stay in Iraq? If we manage to push them out of Yemen, Somalia or the Sudan is my next bet. They are slowly running out of safe havens.
“The libertarian movement, like so many institutions, has been infiltrated by the communists, fascists and Marxists.”
We have a winner....I’d add anti-semites as well...
They are hiding behind the ‘we like jews just not isreal or it’s lobby” thingy...
No, Mine is an example of putting principle before political expediency.
The simple explanation for why we went to war in Iraq, as I have said many times, is because it is easier to kill them in a sandbox than it is to kill them in the rocky crags of Afghanistan. So reciting a screed of this type is wasted on me. I understand the strategy... Excuses do little to reinforce it.
I am also reasonably assured by our legal right in Iraq - albeit a poor reason regarding 911 - I understand that Hussein was firing upon our aircraft daily - Thus breaking the truce outright. I am aware that yellow cake found in Iraq is abundant proof that Hussein was involved in WMD. Further, I am reasonably comfortable with the idea that the airstrike in Syria, largely attributed to Israel, was probably assisted by us, or at the least, we were aware of it - and that strike removed the threat of the larger portion of Hussein's WMD program, which was shipped there by trucks at the start of the war. But all of that is after-the-fact.
And I think the "Just Cause" argument was weak, and is further weakened, and here is why:
First of all, as said by Ronald Reagan: "America doesn't start wars." In this unfortunate case, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, America certainly did start wars - Especially in Afghanistan. There is no evidence that the sovereign nations of Iraq and Afghanistan were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. The reasons advertised for starting these wars fell short of providing that evidence.
I realize that we are up against a criminal organization with no particular allegiance, which is a new thing; and I can understand a certain need for flexibility because of that fact - But I am speaking of conquering sovereign nations, not AlQueda itself... It is quite against our character to conquer without cause.
Secondly, as to the veracity of the claim, I cannot understand how we can be against AlQueda in Iraq and Afghanistan, but for their affiliates in Kosovo and Chechnya. All while ignoring the genocide of Christians taking place in Ethiopia / Sudan (by our enemy). Also while our damnable southern border lies wide open to this very day, an enormous and obvious threat, and our illustrious leader(s) mouth platitudes about the "religion of peace".
These examples, and many more, show a lack of conviction in our leaders, and ignorance, or perhaps duplicity. If in fact, our cause is so dire (and I believe it is), as to break covenants with nations, and set aside our principles, Then we should damn well act like it.
Indeed, I would be inclined to believe we have been told the truth if there were MORE engagement. If this is a crusade - which in fact, it is, whether we want it to be or not - then we should act with extreme bias against all Muslim countries, and tear the bastards down.
Understand that I do not hunger for blood, but for justice - and I expect it not from the hands of our military, but at the hands of our leaders. That justice goes wanting, as does Just Cause. I take great umbrage at that - Not only for the damage done to the soul of this country, but also the insult to the honor of our military.
I remain supportive of this endeavor - but only because we are already in it, and that requires that we win it. But the political class, regardless of party, I fear, does not share my convictions, or my motive, for that matter.
This is about blood, and honor. It is not meant for political hay-making.
as a libertarian... i am all for defending this country through a strong military response to the terrorist threat... i backed the iraq war and afghanistan... just like the repubs and dems... the platform may not be 100% what the members want...
erring on the side of caution with declaring war is not necessarily a bad thing... that way it is swift and thorough.
it is the politics of war that brings our intentions as a country to suspect... if we are fighting to free iraq, why does their constitution permit religious descrimination... these little things allow the libertarians to believe there is more to nation building than liberation.
just my humble thoughts.
teeman
Ah, the bomber came from England, first. How we doing with that?
I don't dispute this, there is every reason to believe that Gore would have gone to war in Iraq the same way as GWB.
To start with Saddam's Iraq was our most immediate threat.
I don't believe that, pure propaganda for justification of the war.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength
Absolutely, Iraq was a brilliant move to draw terrorists out, however it wasn't ever billed as such and was justified as a reasonable response to 9/11 (both by the media and by the government at the time). At that time Americans were still hurting from 9/11, Bush knew that and capitalized on it to take out Iraq. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a war of agression against a grossly inferior power.
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map?
I did, frequently, and it was quickly apparant that the political and geographic isolation of Iran was the real goal at all times, not the supposed "liberation" of the Iraqi people, which later became the justification for the war.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
I hope you don't actually believe thats the case, if you do I feel sorry for you. There is every reason to believe that Jihad groups are springing up in other failed states and new terror groups are planning attacks even now. We don't have any "initiative" derrived from Iraq, if anything we've lost it.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand
Any operational COIN strategy is going to take a long time, no arguement there, but that doesn't provide justification for waging the war in the first place. I agree that our populace probably doesn't have the maturity to stick it out.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.
Thats why their called "extremists". Of course they have no interest in living with us in peace, but that doesn't mean they comprise a significant portion of the population or reflect the beliefs of the population as a whole. If you believe that every muslim is going to kill you then you're buying into the same fearmongering propaganda they feed their side.
What we're seeing in Afghanistan is a pre industrial people who are sitting on the fence regarding us. Initially I think ordinary Afghans actually liked us being there, the Taliban was an oppressive and corrupt regime that harboured terrorists who attacked us, no issues whatsoever in obliterating the place. The issue now (and why the Taliban are gaining momentum) is that we've been there for 8 years now and have more or less backed the wrong horse (Karzai), he's not trusted and should probably be jailed. Ordinary Afghans have seen us mess this up from almost the time of the invasion and we haven't gotten better at fixing the root causes of their grievences (power, water, food, safety). Despite this, we've still got cooperation from the populace in finding the Taliban and the IED's they are placing, we don't get them all unfortunatly. Whats limiting us is the shackles placed on us by the politicans. For example, Helmand province is one of the last real bastions of Taliban might, if we obliterate it the fight will go out of the Taliban for some time and we can make some real headway in Afghanistan but moving into Helmand is going to be bloody (the Brits lose someone there almost every few days just regular patroling) and so there is no political will to do it within the Coalition, which is sad. Lack of political will is screwing us in the behind all the time and because of that we're seen to "run away" from conflicts.
Obama saying he's going to surge then run is only giving them the infowar victory they've fought for, and in my view diminishes the sacrifices we've made there already.
We can make Afghanistan work, but we need the national will to stay for as long as it takes. If we want to be Nation Builders then national will is needed, if we don't want to be nation builders, we should fight our war and then leave.
One other reply. Our military needs to unlearn all that Colin Powell bull crap about “if you break it you better fix it”. That garbage is why we’re still in Iraq and A-stan. Personally I don’t think the US should be in the Nation Building business, if we get attacked, we should obliterate our enemies then move on, not try to rebuild what we’ve broken.
I haven't been in the military, but I have worked as a defense contractor with security clearances during the Reagan era. Military procurement is a bureaucratic nightmare.
There is no sign that it has gotten any better.
When you preorder 400 of a certain type of aircraft, then cut it to 300, then later cut it to 200, the price goes up. Economy of scale is in play.
The US$2000 toilet seats, etc. that certain people made fun of were not price gouging by contractors. By the time all the requirements were met and all the paperwork filled out, that was a "fair" price.
I do not believe in "nation building". People should be free to determine their own destiny, worship as they choose, etc. That's about the same thing as I don't care what you're smoking in your own home, just don't burn the neighborhood down.
I do not believe in preemptive war. Oh look, little Timmy is playing "robber" in a children's game of cops and robbers. Let's kill him before he grows up and becomes a menace to society.
I do believe in a strong defense. You smack me, I smack you back harder.
I consider myself a pacifist. I think where we have kind of lost out with respect to the military is that it has become all too easy to use the military as a distraction. Oh no, Monica is testifying today ... I know, let's bomb a Sudanese aspirin factory!
I think the Afghan war is over the pipeline. Nearly all of the names listed as responsible for 9/11 were Saudis. After we shipped the Bin Ladens back to Saudi in the aftermath, we should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead of Afghanistan if it was really a war on terror we were pursuing.
War & military, like government is a necessary evil. It needs to be regarded as evil and strictly limited. Our Founding Fathers had the latter exactly correct. They got the former correct too - with the 2nd amendment in place, no invasion from without of our beloved country can possibly succeed.
A half century ago, President Eisenhower warned us of the upcoming dangers of a military-industrial complex. The worst of it has come true.
That's an excellent summary, thanks.
I see nothing in his article to support your interpretation. He speaks only of the mission of the military, and does not denigrate the members in this interview what so ever.
Let us confine our discussion to the article, and not straw dogs, shall we.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.