|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CONTRACT VOID! | |||||||||||||
| A REPLY TO ANDREW L. SULLIVAN | |||||||||||||
| By Ronald C. Tobin | |||||||||||||
| E-Mail: [email protected] | |||||||||||||
| When I accepted Mr. Sullivan's article in favor of War with Iraq, which he sent me about two weeks prior to the outbreak of the latest hostilities, I advised him that I would be writing a rebuttal to his article. This is due to the fact that I completely disagree with his premise. He understood, and politely warned me that he would likely rebut my rebuttal, which I said was fine. Even when we disagree, Mr. Sullivan and I respect each other and it never degenerates into name-calling. Let this be an example. | |||||||||||||
| At first blush, one might be concerned that an anarchist, like myself, may have a problem coming up with a fair rebuttal to what appears to be a minarchist argument. Anarchists, after all, do not support the existence of formal government for any reason whatsoever, rendering the entire argument moot. However, as a libertarian anarchist (or, should one prefer, an anarcho-capitalist), I have no problem with discussing the nature of valid contracts. | |||||||||||||
| Contrary to Mr. Sullivan's stand, I do not agree that one can put valid contracts into the twisted world of international affairs. Contracts are entered into for the exchange of goods and services and generally for a specified act or period of time. Outside of criminal gangs, one generally does not see contracts that explicitly call for bodily harm. | |||||||||||||
| Therefore, I do not see how there was any contractual obligation binding on citizens of the United States to go in and topple Saddam's regime. A contract that explicitly called for violent action would be void on its face. Further, unless you or your duly authorized agent actually signs said contract, then you cannot be held liable to honor its terms. I sure did not sign a contract with the House of Saud, any of you sign one? | |||||||||||||
| Mr. Sullivan suggests it would somehow be immoral if the United States were to withdraw all of its forces from foreign soil, that it would somehow 'betray' long established allies. Well, who the blazes ARE these allies anyway? I sure did not see them flock to help with THIS conflict, now did they? Right now, the United States is the world policeman, a function of EMPIRE. Pure and simple. The US government deliberately barges into the affairs of other peoples, even when it cannot possibly be construed as having an impact on so-called "national security" and "national interest." | |||||||||||||
| Frankly, I nearly fell out of my chair in amazement when Sullivan claimed that the basic tenet of US foreign policy was preventing promiscuous conquests by tyrannical governments. Never heard THAT attempted justification for being the world's policeman before, and never really expected to hear it from a minarchist libertarian. To enforce that foreign policy, the US would have to disband, because this country has engaged in such warfare and I say the government has acted in a tyrannical fashion, especially beyond the borders. Ask people who live outside of the mighty Imperium Americanum and see what THEY think, you may well be surprised. No, US foreign policy is largely based on whatever the oligarchy and their pet corporations say is best. Like it or not, the foreign policy is simply "whatever is good for America is good for the world, even if the world does not like it." Nothing noble about that, sorry to say. | |||||||||||||
| Finally, as far as Mr. Sullivan's contention that this war was not a pre-emptive strike, that in fact the First Gulf War never really ended, well I disagree. There was a cease-fire that all sides concerned agreed to. That cease-fire was not set aside until this conflict began. The no-fly zones did create a low-level conflict, which really did not stop Saddam from doing anything. | |||||||||||||
| Having said this, I do think that Mr. Sullivan makes some valid points about the nature of Islam and the recent terrorist acts. Yes, Iraq was involved with the suicide bombers in Israel, but he clearly was NOT involved in the World Trade Center attacks of 11 September 2001. In case some of you have forgotten, allow me to remind you that nearly all those hijackers were Saudi nationals. Gee, from the great ally of the United States, how amazing! | |||||||||||||
| I do thank Mr. Sullivan for sharing his views. No one else presented a stand quite like his, and he definitely made me think about a whole lot of issues. Should he elect to rebut this rebuttal, it will appear in the next issue, along with whatever additional comments I may care to make. Comments from other readers are, as always, welcome. | |||||||||||||
| [This article originally appeared in the March/April 2003 issue of THE THOUGHT.] | |||||||||||||
| RETURN TO WAR WITH IRAQ INDEX | |||||||||||||
| RETURN TO MAIN INDEX | |||||||||||||