POINT/COUNTERPOINT:
THE WAR ON IRAQ - TWO LIBERTARIANS SQUARE OFF
By Ronald C. Tobin, Editor & Publisher
Somewhat to my surprise at the time, the War on Iraq exposed some rather deep divides among various libertarian camps. I would say the majority opposed the war from the beginning, and results since have put still more into this camp. However, a very vocal minority supported the conflict, and some still do. Among Objectivists I noted the division was fairly close to 50/50, and every bit as heated as it was among libertarians. I never supported the war, and I still call for complete withdrawal of all troops before anyone else gets killed for no good reason. Want bad reasons? This war was filled with them, in my eyes.
Jim Stumm, a longtime minarchist libertarian activist and publisher of LIVING FREE, takes great exception to my stand on the war and my attitudes towards the American Empire. I generally consider Mr. Stumm to be a stalwart libertarian and thus a worthy opponent, hence we are having this Point/Counterpoint in-print debate. Mr. Stumm's views will be presented first, followed by my response. Comments from others will certainly be welcome. That said, on to the debate!
IRAQ WAR COMMENTS
By Jim Stumm
To Ron Tobin, TT134p18: For me, being a libertarian primarily means desiring the highest degree of personal freedom for the largest number of people. So, in case of a war, I want to know whether it's a liberation. Will the people in the country being invaded be freer after the war than they were before? The war in Iraq clearly passes this liberation test. The only Iraqis who have less freedom now are Saddam?s regime and his cronies who have lost the freedom to torture and kill and pillage.
You say that freeing the Iraqi people wasn''t really George W. Bush's intention. Even if that's true, why should I care about that? What matters to me is the effect, not the intention.
This is a general comment that applies to all public policies, not just this war. Many leftists/liberals apparently believe that a policy should be supported as long as it's based on good intentions, no matter how disastrous the effects may be. I've seen a quote attributed to Gandhi that says this explicitly. My view is the exact opposite. A policy should be judged entirely on the basis of its effects. Your good intentions don't count for anything when deciding what policy to support. Or your bad intentions either, for that matter.
On those rare occasions when the government adopts a policy that I approve of, because it produces good effects, they almost always do it for the wrong reasons, as far as I'm concerned. So there's nothing unusual about the Iraq War in that respect.
This is similar to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" comment (in "Wealth of Nations") in which he refers to good effects arising out of non-altruistic, possibly selfish, intentions.
p2: You claim to have no love for the Saddam Hussein regime, but you offer no alternative plan for getting rid of his murderous gang, or any other despicable dictator like him. This brings up the reason why I'm a minarchist and not an anarchist, because anarchists have no plausible idea of how to deal with armed force. Noticeably absent from your list of victims you would weep for are those who would have been the future victims of Saddam's tyranny, and of his disgusting sons after him, who might have gone on torturing and stealing for many decades if the regime hadn't been destroyed. You refer to your resolve to create a truly free, stateless society. But how do you propose to do that if you would not use armed force against tyrants? Do you think you can defeat tyranny just by wishing real hard? There are a great many degenerate rulers in the world who have no qualms about using armed force to keep their regimes in power. They will prevail unless better people are willing to use defensive force against them.
United Nations: I don't think GWB ever cared if he received UN approval. Colin Powell might have cared. But the US military needed several weeks to build up sufficient military force in the Persian Gulf, and while that was going on, GWB let the Powell faction see what they could get from the UN, if anything. But as soon as General Franks told GWB his troops were ready, the UN talks ended, and the war began within days.
The UN is mostly irrelevant anyway. Use it when convenient, otherwise ignore it. It should not be considered the voice of world opinion, since most of its members are dictatorships. It's one dictator, one vote, at the UN. Besides, why does France have a veto in the Security Council when more important countries like India and Japan do not?
Freedom: You mock the idea of USA being a free country. But for all its faults, most other countries are worse. You don't seem to be able to imagine how really awful it was living under a regime like Saddam's or Stalin's, compared to how much better it is here. I bet GWB's government has never touched even a hair on your head. He certainly leaves you free to write anti-government tirades that would get you tortured and killed under many other regimes. I've searched the world (library research) to find freer countries and I haven't found any that stand out. Most places that are freer than USA in some respects, are less free in other ways. E.g., in Europe, taxes are generally higher than in USA. For a libertarian, the USA is a terrible country, but all the others are worse.
Jim Stumm Box 29, Hiler Branch
Buffalo, NY 14223
[Stumm publishes LIVING FREE and is also a frequent contributor to THE CONNECTION.]
THE AMERICAN EMPIRE, GEORGE W. BUSH, & THE TRUTH ABOUT THE WAR IN IRAQ
By Ronald C. Tobin
This is, of course, my reply to Jim Stumm's rather odd, in my opinion, response to my stands against the Iraq War and my evaluations regarding the status of freedom with the confines of the American Imperium. Many of Stumm's attitudes strike me as being very Machiavellian ("The ends justify the means," see THE PRINCE), views which, to me, fly in the face of rational libertarianism. Still, I will make every effort to remain objective, though trust that I reserve the right to respond to digs (and even the casual reader will see those) with an appropriate degree of sarcasm.
Stumm believes that the war in Iraq was justified because it was, in his opinion, a true war of liberation. He believes the people of Iraq are now, by and large, freer than they were prior to the invasion, unless they were part of Saddam's old regime.
Well, let's take a look at that. The Shiite clerics and mullahs are coming into their own, fully intending to turn Iraq into a theocratic state similar to Iran once the occupation ends. So, the Muslim fundamentalists are clearly freer. The Sunni minority, who supported Saddam, have made a large area of Iraq into a free fire zone, where US troops take casualties almost daily. Sure sounds better to me. As for the women of Iraq? Well, many of them used to enjoy good jobs that paid well, generally equal to men. They also used to wear jeans just like women in the West. Now, by and large they must wear traditional Muslim garb, consisting of long dresses and keeping their hair covered, plus it is now unsafe for them to walk alone. Yes, this sounds like a great liberation step to me-NOT!
Stumm asks why he should care exactly what President-Dictator Bush's intentions really were vis-a-vis the people of Iraq. Well, since he has basically stated that he believes the ends justify the means so long as the ends have good effects, I guess he should not care. I firmly disagree with this attitude. I believe that intentions DO matter, though of course I would not support an allegedly well-intentioned policy that I thought would lead to disastrous results. I have never been a great admirer of Gandhi, I always thought he was very overrated (UK abandoned India after World War 2 because they could not afford to stay, not because of anything Gandhi and his followers did).
Stumm says that when the government adopts a policy that has good effects, they almost always do it for the wrong reasons. I cannot think of many examples of this, but even if I were to agree with this statement, I certainly could not count the War on Iraq as being such a case. It certainly has NOT resulted in a net increase in freedom for the American people. GWB initially had Congress fund the war for the tune of 75 billion dollars extorted from the citizenry. Then, after the occupation started to become really dicey, he went back to Congress for an additional 75 billion in stolen funds. That's money stolen out of our pockets to fund the occupation of the province of Iraq. Better by far to have burned it.
To compare the effects of the War on Iraq with the effects of the 'invisible hand' in the free markets envisioned by Adam Smith and other capitalist philosophers is absurd. Altruism is evil, no lasting good ever comes of it. Rational, non-predatory selfishness, helps build the world. One can best help others once their own house is in order and their own needs met. Iraq now has an unemployment rate of about 65%, an infrastructure blasted by war and the continuing insurgency. Where are the good effects that Stumm said justified this war?
Then, Stumm goes on in his missive to chastise me because I offer no alternative plan to getting rid of Saddam Hussein's regime, or any other despicable dictator. He expressly states that one of the flaws of anarchism is that we anarchists have 'no plausible idea of how to deal with armed force.' Well, in many discussions I had with minarchist libertarians, Objectivists, and free thinkers who thought intervention in Iraq was justified, the chorus was that Saddam Hussein was a madman and needed to be removed from power. I said, given that the man is a genocidal dictator, I would not be adverse to private individuals paying some assassins to go to Baghdad and kill him. After all, if he was the problem, why send thousands of young Americans into harm's way on a fool's errand? Some found merit in my alternative, but many somehow did not think that would work.
So, in the end the Imperial Legions smashed the depleted and demoralized armed forces of Iraq, but what about Saddam Hussein? Oops, they did not catch him, nor have they been able to kill him. The Empire DID manage to kill his sons, but that is not enough. Many Iraqis are afraid he will return once the Legions furl their colors and march back home. That has been a large part of the problem. If Saddam were captured or killed, it would indeed demoralize the insurgency. The Empire has yet to find him, so the cycle continues.
Stumm does not, in my opinion, know enough about any sort of anarchism to make a blanket statement saying we, as a group, have "no plausible idea of how to deal with armed force." Save for the avowed pacifists, every anarchist I know has some idea of how best to deal with armed force. Most libertarian anarchists openly advocate private firearm ownership. Many anarcho-capitalists, myself among them, wish to live in propertarian communities in which one would subscribe to a protection service if one so chose. Armed force, therefore, would be met with armed force. If a threat to several communities existed, a common volunteer militia would be formed to counter it. Willingness to cooperate is the key, and I don't see that as being a problem. Anarchists who truly believe in a cause can go to those places and offer their services. This has happened before, and I am certain that it will happen again.
Would I use volunteer-armed force against a tyrant? Is this tyrant a direct threat to my life and my interests and those of my friend s, allies, my family? If so, then yes, and I would be among the fighters. If YOU feel so strongly about this war, Stumm, then why aren't you there, putting your life on the line? No, I don't think that tyranny can be defeated by 'wishing real hard,' I just don't think that tyranny has been defeated in Iraq. The yoke of Saddam and the Baath Party has been replaced with that of GWB and the American Imperium along with their British lackeys. That yoke may well be lighter, but it is still a yoke.
Pray tell, Mr. Stumm, HOW was the invasion of Iraq an example of using defensive force? Even GWB did not have the audacity to make that claim. He said it was a preemptive strike to stop Saddam from using weapons of mass destruction (to date none of that has been found). GWB further said that the Imperium reserves the right to strike first at any perceived threat to national security. First strike is an offensive option, Stumm. I really would like for you to elaborate and clarify your contention that this invasion was a defensive act.
That the United Nations has become increasingly irrelevant is no news to me. Back in the 1980s, many of us were concerned that the UN might actually become some sort of world government. I doubt anyone has any concern about that now, during an obvious trend of decentralization.
That said, I think it is not true that GWB did not care about getting UN support for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He used prior UN resolutions to justify his acts, and he desperately wanted that extra manpower and supplies. Then, when the troops were ready and it was clear that the UN would not play ball, he ordered the invasion. Now, he has the gall to send Powell back to that same UN and try to get support for the occupation and set-up of a new Iraqi government. As to when the troops leave - that is left wide open. So far, the UN has been reluctant to assist the Empire in this endeavor, and I for one hope that they continue to play hardball and make the Imperium and their British lackeys pay ALL the costs, human and material.
Stumm, I contend the invasion of Iraq was little more than military adventurism. I contend that it contributed not one iota to the safety and security of the American people, was a lot of smoke and mirrors as regards the Iraqi people. It has lined the pockets of multinational corporations such as Halliburton, a company that Vice President-Dictator Cheney has been (likely still is) involved with. I say that all the troops who have died or will die in this fiasco DIED IN VAIN. What about THEIR freedom, Stumm? Granted, they volunteered and should have known the risks. Even still, I say it is time to withdraw US troops from all bases on foreign soil, and demand that the Empire cease trying to be the world's policeman. It is time to put the last remaining superpower out to pasture.
Then, as a parting gesture to somehow prove that I must be a horrible, awful person, Stumm takes me to task for mocking the idea that the USA is somehow a free country. Well, gosh, I think I will just stand behind my mockery of such a foolish notion 100%! Who can be so blind as to think this is a free country anymore? Especially after the events of 9/11 and the passing of that abomination called the PATRIOT Act? You are not even being honest with yourself on this one, Stumm. It has been years since I heard another libertarian minarchist try using those arguments. Take an actual LOOK at the rest of the world. Correspond with people in other nations, and you may well find freer places overall. Most places MAY still be worse than the US, but certainly not all. Especially not now.
Stumm states that I "don't seem to be able to imagine how really awful it was living under a regime like Saddam's or Stalin's." Well, I must differ with his supposition. I am a trained historian. I have studied violent regimes such as that of Stalin and the French Revolution quite extensively. I can easily imagine how awful it was to live under such a regime. I say that for Stumm to compare Saddam to Stalin is outright absurd. Saddam was and is a despicable tyrant, but his regime could not hold a candle to Stalin's. Only Hitler's was comparable, and it is a toss-up between those two on which one was the vilest.
And then Stumm goes so far as to bet that "GWB's government has not touched even a hair on my head." WRONG! As an occasional air traveler, I have been affected by the new draconian security rules, had my luggage pawed through by strangers, all in the notion that we are all somehow terrorists until and unless WE prove otherwise. I know people who have had their lives torn apart by the Empire's new policies on immigration and the like.
Correct me if I am mistaken, Mr. Stumm, but are you implying I should be grateful to the Imperial regime because it ALLOWS me to write anti-government tirades, an activity that would get me tortured or killed in many other places? The American Imperium needs to keep up the pretense of respecting free speech. To do otherwise would cause the kettle to overheat and explode. They will leave me, and others like me, alone, until they perceive someone to be a bonafide threat. Right now, they look at me as some kind of cranky middle-aged activist, no threat to the Imperium so why would they bother me? A few prisons regard me as a threat, as this publication is banned in a few state systems.
To me, and most libertarians I know, free speech is a birthright, a part of being human. No government has a right to do anything about it. I will continue to call the Empire to task for its wrongdoings until it stops, which likely means until it ceases to be. Thanks to the adventurism of GWB and his fellow Imperials, I doubt that the Empire will hold together more than another twenty years. Secession movements are taking root in many states, Hawaii, Alaska, and now Vermont have fairly vocal ones.
Anyway, I know I have said more than enough in response to Jim Stumm's comments. He is certainly welcome to comment further, as is anyone else who would like to participate in this discussion. Jim, I really think you should take off your rose colored glasses and take a good, hard look at what the United States has REALLY become. Visit with people in the urban areas and let it sink in. I think you have isolated yourself in those quiet woodlands outside of Buffalo for so long that you have lost some perspective. Frankly, now, in most ways CANADA (outside of Quebec with its bizarre French language protection laws) is freer than is the US. Taxes and that socialized health care system excepted, of course. I could end up there...
I do thank Jim Stumm for sharing his views with us. He gave me pause to sit down and think things through. I still contend this war was dead wrong!
UPDATE: Since this article was written, Saddam Hussein HAS been captured and is in the custody of the Imperium, likely being handled strictly by the CIA.  However, this does not, as of yet (26 December, 2003) seem to have demoralized the insurgency one iota.  Saddam was not a major player in that effort, it seems.  So, wait and see what else transpires.  Other than that, I stand behind all the statements that I made in that rebuttal.
[This in-print debate originally appeared in the July/August 2003 issue of THE THOUGHT.]
RETURN TO IRAQ INDEX
RETURN TO MAIN INDEX
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1