Hot for war

Bryan Caplan wonders why more libertarians weren't against the war:

When the Washington Times announced that libertarianism is trendy, I couldn't help but think "It would be a lot trendier if libertarians had been against the Iraq War from the start."

Plenty of libertarians were against it, of course. But if you remember how integral isolationist/ non-interventionist foreign policy was to the libertarian idea back in the '70s and '80s, the libertarian reaction to the Iraq War (and the War on Terror generally) has been quite astonishing.

I'd say that the fall of the Soviet Union discredited several ideas on the left and the right: on the left, the idea that the state should own most of the means of production; on the right, the idea of isolationism, or non-interventionism. It is now patently obvious that if the US had not drawn a proverbial line in the sand through Germany, the Soviets would now own large blocks of Western Europe that would be struggling in the same way that Eastern Europe now does. Moreover, unlike in Southeast Asia, one cannot make even a tenuous argument that American intervention somehow caused Soviet imperialism, creating the cold war that we then had to fight. Everyone's a consequentialist if the consequences are bad enough.

But that's just a theory; perhaps my readers have better ones.

Comments

What do you mean by this?

"Moreover, unlike in Southeast Asia, one cannot make even a tenuous argument that American intervention somehow caused Soviet imperialism, creating the cold war that we then had to fight."

Does that mean caused Soviet imperialism in general, or Soviet imperialism into Southeast Asia?

Posted by Rickm | November 26, 2007 2:46 PM

"But that's just a theory; perhaps my readers have better ones."

My theory is that many people who call themselves libertarians just object to taxing the rich to help the poor and are not really libertarians at all. It is hard for me to see how a principled libertarian could support the Iraq war.

Posted by James B. Shearer | November 26, 2007 2:55 PM

I think a libertarian (at least a minarchist) could make the argument that societies in which citizens are not free should be liberated from dictators, and that military force against less-libertarian states of some form would be justified at least under some circumstances. (You can debate whether Iraq was a good choice for pursuing this policy, but very few right-minded people would say that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was anything other than a brutal police state and the antithesis of libertarian values.)

Certainly libertarians don't believe in government-coerced redistribution of wealth, but most (including libertarian-leaning pro-war bloggers like Glenn Reynolds) also oppose the War on Some Drugs, government intervention to support wealthy corporations, and many other domestic policies that are championed by pro-war conservatives.

Posted by Chris Lawrence | November 26, 2007 3:11 PM

It is now patently obvious that if the US had not drawn a proverbial line in the sand through Germany

That line was drawn by the Soviets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yalta_Conference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_conference

the Soviets would now own large blocks of Western Europe

They did not "own" even those blocks of Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Whatever your definition of "ownership" might be, their control was predicated on their military occupation and threat of military force; and the fact that there were active de facto resistance movements in all those countries gives the lie to how complete that control really was. Control is not "ownership."

one cannot make even a tenuous argument that American intervention somehow caused Soviet imperialism, creating the cold war that we then had to fight.

U.S. troops were significantly involved in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

I think it would be reasonable to believe that an essentially megalomaniac person like Stalin who lived through those times would feel compelled to establish buffer zones around the core Soviet Union, not only for the purpose of expanding his sphere of control but also to give some depth for defense of the homeland in case of foreign invasion; especially given what he had just been through in the war against Nazi Germany where Russia had not had such a buffer zone and Moscow was being shelled within a few months of the invasion.

It is also undeniably true that the early leaders of the Soviet Union has spoken in the past about "telescoping the [Communist] revolution" throughout the world, so there was some justifiable anxiety on the side of the Western Allies about that being Stalin's true goal. But to say that one "cannot make even a tenuous argument" that Soviet "imperialism" was not caused by American interventionism is simply not true.

Posted by liberalrob | November 26, 2007 3:38 PM

As far as why more libertarians have not come out against the Iraq war, I agree with James Shearer. Also, as the Washington Times quote says, libertarianism is trendy these days and people will quite often jump on a popular trend without knowing what it really stands for. I also believe many so-called "libertarians" are actually Republicans trying to wriggle out from under association with the excesses of the neo-con/christofascists who have taken control of the party; and some percentage (perhaps even a majority) of those refugees are people who secretly or even publicly agreed with the radical policies of those leaders in the beginning, but now that it's all heading into the toilet want to deny ever even knowing those people. I must say I'm not surprised.

Posted by liberalrob | November 26, 2007 3:49 PM

Of course, some libertarians already knew that we'd been bombing Iraq continuously since the end of Gulf War I. That we were still enforcing the No-Fly-Zones and had lots of troops in Saudi Arabia. That the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing, and the US Embassy bombings were all related to our continuing activity in the Middle East. So, we saw the War on Terror and Gulf War II not as some new activity in the Middle East, but just a continuation of our on-going interventionist policies.

Some of us also saw Gulf War II as the best way of capitulating to some of al Qaeda's demands. A real big bug up Osama's ass and great money-raising and recruting propaganda for al Qaeda were the US soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia. The invasion of Iraq moved our troops out of Saudi Arabia into Iraq and Kuwait. Sure, this may not have been what al Qaeda meant when they demanded we leave Saudi Arabia, but we did leave.

Personally, I would have prefered it if we had left the area altogether at the end of Gulf War I and told Iran, SA and Kuwait that they need to be responsible for what happens in Iraq next. I would have also been happy if we pulled out of the region after 9/11, or before we attacked Afghanistan, or when the UN refused to back up the WMD resolutions against Iraq. There were a dozen points along the way were the US could have said, "Okay, well go f**k yourselves then" and pulled our troops out of the region and left Saddam in power as a problem for his neighbors (and France and Russia who had done nearly everything they could to undermine the embargo).

But to close out this mini-rant, I'm glad we did something. The status quo in Iraq was the worst of all the possible situations: keeping troops in Saudi Arabia, no-fly zones, intermittant bombing runs against radar stations and suspicious buildings, an embargo (that wasn't working), cat and mouse games with WMD inspectors. It was already a low-grade war, but we, as a country, were all ignoring it.

Posted by Xmas | November 26, 2007 3:50 PM

The Soviets may have been a looming spectre of doom, but they never accomplished what Bin Laden and his minions did on 9/11. That's the difference. I think such a spectacular event is what cause many American libertarians to give Dubya the benefit of the doubt on Iraq. In hindsight that was a foolish mistake, but I think it was one that many people, including me, made.

Posted by Christina | November 26, 2007 3:51 PM

I must say I'm not surprised.

Why would you be surprised by your own baseless speculation about the possible motivations of others?

Are you often surprised by the things you make up?

Posted by Rob Lyman | November 26, 2007 3:54 PM

This post is weird.

First of all, isolationism, while certainly a represented by some commentators on the right (like Pat B), can hardly be called an idea of the right. After all, non-intervention wasn't exactly the dominant theory of international relations of Nixon or Ford or Reagan or Bush I.

Second, the gulf between mainstream progressives in the USA and communists is wider than the Pacific Ocean. To suggest otherwise is just a rhetorical cheap shot on par with lefties claiming Republicans are facists. And I think you're dangerously close of just such a staw man attack by saying "on the left, the idea that the state should own most of the means of production", which implies this was a widespread belief among mainstream progressives. It never was, and one hopes, it never will be.

Third, a large number of conservative libertarians WERE against the war and were smeared as wackos or even traitors for this opposition (the silly James Taranto comes to mind). Take a look at the mises.org archives, or the Cato Institute's archives about the war. Their arguments were largely predictable (impossibility of knowing the consequences of our actions; the loss of life and expenses; etc.) and, uh, they were largely proven correct in their bleak assessment. Much more so then Glen Reynold's war mongering and cheerleading posts. I know Glen styles himself a libertarian, and heaven knows he is on some issues. However, on the war, I find Cato's writings much more closely aligned with the theory of libertarianism.

Posted by szr | November 26, 2007 4:18 PM

t is now patently obvious that if the US had not drawn a proverbial line in the sand through Germany, the Soviets would now own large blocks of Western Europe that would be struggling in the same way that Eastern Europe now does.

Jesus.

No, it is not patently obvious; no, saying so is not an argument; yes, saying so without any kind of evidentiary support diminishes what you're saying.

Posted by Freddie | November 26, 2007 5:05 PM

Ummmm . . . Berlin airlift?

SZR, I didn't say that progressives advocated government ownership of the means of production. But there was on the left a group at least as large as the Rothbardians on the right who did advocate such a thing (and, I might add, occasionally still applauds Venezuela's nationalizations). The point is not that the views were dominant; they weren't. The point is merely that these views have gone from rare to basically nonexistant.

Posted by Megan McArdle | November 26, 2007 5:50 PM

The surprising thing to me about Libertarians is that so many of them agree with the Bush administration's detention and interrogation policies. As I read the Sixth Amendment and Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2, the administration has violated and is violating the letter and spirit of the Constitution. From what I've seen, many if not most libertarians couldn't care less, and they also don't seem to object to our use of torture. Except for the honorable exception of Ron Paul and his followers, I don't see Libertarians as different from Wall Street Journal Republicans in any significant way.

Posted by Stan | November 26, 2007 5:53 PM

MM,

Could you provide us with your working definition of 'Libertarianism'?

Maybe you would do well by asking:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ or,
http://www.mises.org/

Posted by Mark E Hoffer | November 26, 2007 6:34 PM

liberalrob wrote: They did not "own" even those blocks of Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Whatever your definition of "ownership" might be, their control was predicated on their military occupation and threat of military force; and the fact that there were active de facto resistance movements in all those countries gives the lie to how complete that control really was. Control is not "ownership."

My definition of ownership, at least in casual discussions like this, is maintenance of basic control over a posssession. Interestingly, the last time lexicographers did a word survey on the matter, they came up with something remarkably similar. They documented their findings in a comprehensive tome known as a "dictionary."

Posted by anony-mouse | November 26, 2007 6:42 PM

They did not "own" even those blocks of Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain.

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you write something this ignorant?

Posted by Steven | November 26, 2007 6:53 PM

But did the USSR pwn Eastern Europe?

Posted by Rickm | November 26, 2007 6:53 PM

Everyone's a consequentialist if the consequences are bad enough.

This was the idea that eventually got me, way back in Intro to Moral Philosophy.

Posted by Trevor | November 26, 2007 8:53 PM

It seems initially absurd to credit the fall of the USSR in 1989 with increasing libertarian support for an invasion of Iraq in 2003. If the proposition "isolationism is wrong" is supposed to lead to "we should invade Iraq", there is something misfiring in the logic circuits.

The closest connection I would see is that the fall of the USSR led both to increasing support for libertarianism in the US, among a certain class of triumphalist binary thinkers, and to an increased willingness or eagerness to launch grand military interventions to strike down people who fit the classic image of the totalitarian dictator. On the latter count, there were a lot of people who were disappointed that the Cold War didn't end with American tanks rolling into Moscow and wanted to replay the story that way -- hence the toppling of the Saddam statue. On the former count, among the young libertarians I have met, those who attended college since 1989, many of them are of the simplistic cast of mind that would have most likely made them Marxists if they'd been in college between 1965 and 1975.

On a more intellectual level, one of the few areas which libertarians seem to accept as a genuine public good is the national defense. Relatively few libertarians seem willing to focus on the fact that the US's "national defense" is no longer in any meaningful sense actually "national defense". Also, libertarians are even more hostile to international organizations than they are to national governments, so the idea that a unipolar invasion is worse than a multilateral one is foreign to them, and the disapproval of the people of the rest of the world does not seem to count for anything.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 26, 2007 9:07 PM

Democrats are just socialists killing us slowly, while communists are up for killing us all at once. Anyone who advocates single payer health care or rails against for profit drug companies is merely a slow communist.

Most Dems are further to the left than the Chinese Communist Party. Definitely more Dems are Maoists on a percentage basis than in the CCP.

As to libertarians - far too many are autarkists, and racist to boot. You'll note that they treat everyone outside of their own country as completely lacking in internal motivation. The only real humans are in "my" country, everyone else is helplessly responding to my actions. The apologists for STALIN above show you all you need to know about this sort of "libertarian". A purer example of the sentiment that Niemöller excoriated can not be found.

Denying that foreign relations is a hobbesian world filled with people who have different worldviews is simply an example of immaturity. Osama and the rest of the jihadists really mean what they say. They've told us what they're going to do, just like Mein Kampf did. China doesn't intend to passively stay within its current borders either. The current US military posture is something that no libertarian would accept as sufficient to protect their house, but the autarkists don't believe that they need to protect their country. An effective deterrent by the US would be a military 2 or 3 times as large as the current one, just as no house is well secured until there are many firearms available, the perimeter hardened, appropriate lighting and video systems setup, etc.

Posted by Hey | November 26, 2007 10:36 PM

Hey said:

DemocratsSocialistsCommunistsChinesekillinguslibertariansautarkistsracistsStalinistshobbesianOsamaMeinKampfautarkistsackblargboogabooga!

To which I literally have no reply.

Posted by liberalrob | November 27, 2007 12:08 AM

Steven said:

Do you really expect to be taken seriously when you write something this ignorant?

No, Steven, of course not.

Have you met Hey?

Posted by liberalrob | November 27, 2007 12:12 AM

Squeak:

They documented their findings in a comprehensive tome known as a "dictionary."

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/ownership

1 : the state, relation, or fact of being an owner

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/owner

1 a: to have or hold as property : possess b: to have power or mastery over

I went with 1a. I assume you are going with 1b. I contend that the extent that the Soviets "had power or mastery over" Eastern Europe was only as far as military domination would take them; and when that domination faltered, their "ownership" came to a swift end. Such transitory "ownership" seems hardly worth the name when considered in terms of foreign conquest. The Holy Roman Empire lasted 700 years; the Soviet Union "owned" their East European "empire" barely 45, and on at least three occasions that "ownership" was severely tested.

Would the Soviet Union "now own large blocks of Western Europe" absent American military opposition? I find that prospect highly dubious, and in any case it did not happen. It is far from "patently obvious."

Posted by liberalrob | November 27, 2007 12:28 AM

In my opinion there are two kinds of libertarians: libertarians, and conservatives who call themselves libertarians. The latter group characterizes the "libertarians" in a few comments here; certainly Stan's pro-torture libertarians do.

My phrasing is a bit of smart-ass No-True-Scotsmanism, but I think there really is a schism amongst people who self-identify as libertarians. The latter define themselves as libertarians due to support of private property and commerce, and perhaps opposition to the Drug War, but are willing to give their own government extra-constitutional powers to defend against criminals or foreign threats, which they perceive as the greater threat to liberty.

In so doing, they've allied themselves with rank nationalists who give carte blanche to an executive branch that shares their views, who have created an echo chamber in which confirmation bias runs rampant by obsessing over every negative story in the so-called liberal media, and who commit the "something" fallacy (Something must be done; this is something, therefore this must be done) every time they accuse opponents of Republican policy of rooting for the terrorists. In my opinion, they're staring into the abyss.

But I digress. I think for a lot of libertarians on both sides of that particular isle, back in 2002 the Den Beste theory in support of the war, that terrorism was caused by tyranny and thus the only way to kill the terrorism was to kill the tyranny, was very tempting. Since then, I think for most libertarians (including myself) Henley's quip - "Hayek doesn't stop at the water's edge" - has won out. To use the army not to destroy a nation, but to perform surgery on it, is ultimately just another government program.

Ultimately, the main principle libertarians and conservatives have in common is opposition to leftism. I think the effect of the fall of communism on libertarians, far more than to dissuade them of "isolationism", was to rob them of the common enemy they shared with conservatives. Once Republicans were no longer the opposition party, the schism was only a matter of time.

Posted by solarjetman | November 27, 2007 12:33 AM

There is a widespread desire to distill each group (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.) into a set of "core beliefs" and then assume that all those who belong to the group must subscribe to all of those beliefs. However, there's several problems with this approach.

1. Generally holding a belief, like say "government solutions are inefficient and require coercion" is not the same as completely accepting that belief when taken to its most extreme "there should be no government, privatize everything! National defense, tax collection, law enforcement, everything!" Almost everyone lies somewhere on a continuum between conflicting ideals, rather than camped out on top of one extreme ideal.

2. If group D has 10 core beliefs, and group R has 10 other beliefs, and group L has 10, which group do you belong to if you share 3 beliefs with D, 3 with R, and 5 with L? Oftentimes people end up in a group because it is the best fit for them, but that doesn't mean it's a perfect fit, and that they share all of that groups perceived beliefs. Megan demonstrates this with Libertarians, as she differs quite regularly from supposed core libertarian beliefs, but surely everyone here can think of a Democrat or Republican who differs from their party on at least one issue.

3. Even going beyond examination of beliefs, lots of people end up in a political group the same way they end up in most groups - through social pressures and acquaintances. If mummy and daddy are Republicans, that may seem the natural thing to become. Or if all the cool kids in college are Democrats (especially that really cute environmentalist girl) then maybe I'll hang out with them and listen to what they say.

But all these people, whether they believe all the core beliefs a little bit, or only some of the core beliefs, or whether they're only here for the punch and pie, tend to fall back on what they think of as common sense. And if you didn't believe Bush was lying about WMDs, or if you get a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about liberating oppressed people from a dictator, or if you thought we needed the oil, then the war might have seemed appealing to your common sense. The real devil is in the details, as always. The reason the war was a bad idea isn't because the Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians are 100% right about some perfect ideal they hold, it's because of all the messy little details that most people had no deep understanding of before the war, and most probably don't have now.

Posted by Geoff | November 27, 2007 10:02 AM

"...on the left, the idea that the state should own most of the means of production"

Really? Who on the left was, in the late 80's, advocating that the "state should own most of the means of production?" I don't recall any figures remotely in the mainstream left saying that the state should nationalize factories, banks, and media. Who were they? Name them. Link to some publications. Or admit that this statement was ill thought-out garbage.

Can the Atlantic possibly be proud some someone who would write such absurd nonsense?

Posted by jon | November 27, 2007 10:31 AM

Democrats are just socialists ...Anyone who advocates single payer health care ...Most Dems are further to the left than the Chinese Communist Party. ...As to libertarians - far too many are autarkists, and racist to boot...Osama and the rest of the jihadists really mean what they say. They've told us what they're going to do, just like Mein Kampf did...An effective deterrent by the US would be a military 2 or 3 times as large as the current one,
Posted by Hey | November 26, 2007 10:36 PM

Hey you're a parody right? Wow that was a good performance of a crazy far right nut. Bravo. I really like the Dems = Maoists. U iz teh Fnny.

Posted by Northern Observer | November 27, 2007 10:40 AM

I think everyone flips out from time to time, and it was Hey's turn.

It's the crazy world in which we live.

Posted by liberalrob | November 27, 2007 11:07 AM

Geoff:

The reason the war was a bad idea isn't because the Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians are 100% right about some perfect ideal they hold, it's because of all the messy little details that most people had no deep understanding of before the war, and most probably don't have now.

Right on.

But the question was, why didn't more self-described "libertarians" oppose the war.

For as long as I've been politically aware, political discourse in this country (and probably many, most, or all others) has largely consisted of trying to pigeonhole people into some orthodoxy or other and then attack the orthodoxy. It's a lot easier to attack an orthodoxy, which by definition is not a moving target, than to attack every individual who disagrees with you on the basis of their own diverse beliefs. Everyone does that; I do it myself.

And there are so many wonderful orthodoxies to choose from...you are a Maoist, you are a Marxist, you are a Democrat, you are a Republican; all those labels, either self-applied or applied to you by others, imply that you adhere to a certain set of beliefs (some would say, you are assumed to be a True Scotsman). It is then incumbent on YOU to explain why you are NOT a True Scotsman, because your orthodoxy implies this or that or the other unpleasant policy preference. And once you go to the trouble of doing this, people will tell you that since you are not a True Scotsman/Maoist/Democrat/Libertarian you therefore should join up with their orthodoxy instead.

In the eyes of others, we are all True Scotsmen, all following our Bonnie Princes unquestioningly.

Posted by liberalrob | November 27, 2007 11:48 AM

liberalrob,

But the question was, why didn't more self-described "libertarians" oppose the war.

I think I addressed that with my three numbered items, but I'll try to clarify it a bit:

The question contains an implicit assumption that a self-described libertarian would oppose all foreign interventions and all military action other than self-defense. I refute that assumption by saying that even if we consider that belief to be one of the core libertarian beliefs, there are three classes of people who will self-describe as libertarian and still disbelieve it.

1. That core belief is too extreme - I generally think that interventionist policies are bad, but in this specific case, I find it justifiable because
a. WMDs == self-defense
b. it is important to liberate people from dictators, so that they can enjoy all these libertarian principles that we have over here
or
c. I value the economic benefit of securing oil reserves higher than the cost of intervention

2. I believe several other libertarian ideals, but not this one. I can oppose the war on drugs, which neither R nor D does, and I can be fiscally and liberally conservative regarding domestic policy, while also believing we should invade Iraq. This makes me self-identify as libertarian, without necessarily holding this particular belief.

3. I self-identify as libertarian because it's a group of people. I hang out with other libertarians, and I like some of the stuff they say, even though I don't believe this particular thing.

It is then incumbent on YOU to explain why you are NOT a True Scotsman

This is one of the reasons it leads to more stone-throwing than actual debate. If you believe 9 out of 10 of the Democratic party's core platform items, then when we start discussing that 10th item, the rational thing for you to do is say "yes, that is one area where I disagree with them." But if instead, we focus on this notion that a True Democrat (sorry, Progressive) must believe these 10 things, then that leaves you in the position of either saying "I am no True Democrat" (which you are unlikely to do, since you self-identify with this group and probably like them and most of the things they advocate) or saying "Yeah, but True Republicans are worse!" which just begins the stone-throwing.

So I suppose I suggest spending less time on the group identity debate and more on the specific ideas debate. "Why did you support the Iraq war, don't you oppose foreign intervention?" rather than "Why did you support the Iraq war, aren't you a Libertarian?"

Posted by Geoff | November 27, 2007 1:09 PM

Geoff-

In order for this belief: "a. WMDs == self-defense", to make a modicum of sense, you would also need to show intent by the owner of the WMD to use it against the civilian or military population of the country trying to defend itself.

I believe you are committing a category error here: "I believe several other libertarian ideals, but not this one. I can oppose the war on drugs, which neither R nor D does, and I can be fiscally and liberally conservative regarding domestic policy, while also believing we should invade Iraq. This makes me self-identify as libertarian, without necessarily holding this particular belief."

Being an ideological libertarian is not on the same plane as being a Democrat or Republican. While many Democrats favor the war on drugs, it is not their status qua Democrats that makes them favor the war on drugs, rather, it is their status qua elected official or political operative. Few liberal intellectuals support the war on drugs.

Isn't part of the libertarian intellectual thrust is not its normative judgments about how just government intervention is, but its positive judgment that government intervention usually fails to achieve its goals? Is this--why did you think foreign intervention into Iraq would achieve the states goals--a question relevant to the libertarian mindset?

Posted by Rickm | November 27, 2007 1:31 PM

Rickm,

Being an ideological libertarian is not on the same plane as being a Democrat or Republican.

I agree that the galas aren't as glamorous, but it's still a group you identify yourself as belonging to, based primarily on a set of beliefs. If we were to list "core Democratic beliefs" and "core Republican beliefs" and "core libertarian beliefs", you'd find more than two or three items on each list. If I share 20% with the Dems, 20% with the Reps, and 80% with the libertarians, how should I self-identify, since you've declared me to be No True Ideological Libertarian? How do you label Megan, who clearly doesn't follow all core libertarian beliefs 100%?

Isn't part of the libertarian intellectual thrust is not its normative judgments about how just government intervention is, but its positive judgment that government intervention usually fails to achieve its goals? Is this--why did you think foreign intervention into Iraq would achieve the states goals--a question relevant to the libertarian mindset?

Touche. But the key word is "usually". Most don't advocate the complete abolition of all government everywhere, they acknowledge various areas where government is desirable, with military usually on the list. As to why are these particular goals achievable, I'd say they actually are. Had there been WMDs, we would have gotten them. The people actually are liberated from the dictator Saddam. And we will be buying Iraqi oil. The fact that everything else is a complete disaster doesn't mean those original modest goals were unrealistic. Now the belief that a year or two spent in the company of the US Army would turn Iraq into Connecticut, that I'll grant is pretty naive. But that wasn't on my list of possibly "libertarian" rationales.

Posted by Geoff | November 27, 2007 3:08 PM

It's very simple: most people who call themselves libertarians, including the author of this very blog, are simply Republicans who have the decency to be embarassed by the religious right.

You can see this by how often she bashes Krugman, for instance.

Posted by Voice of Reason | November 27, 2007 4:47 PM

I consider myself a libertarian. Because I served in the military, I have a better notion than some about what constitutes self-defense on a national level.

It has been clear to me and others for a long time now that the Islamists, i.e., those of the Muslim faith that openly proclaim a world-wide jihad against all non-believers, are our enemies and that sooner or later we would have to do something about it. I always assumed that it would be later, and as bad as 9/11 was, I never thought that the American people could be made to appreciate the threat from the Islamists to the extent that we would actually DO SOMETHING about it. I actually thought it would take the inevitable nuke of one of our cities before we got serious about the threat. I was therefore surprised when Bush decided to actually DO SOMETHING about it.

As soon as Bush declared the War on Terror, I knew that we were going into Iraq unless Saddam did some serious tap dancing to avoid it. He didn't, so we did.

How does believing in national self-defense make me less of a libertarian?

Posted by Rex | November 27, 2007 5:15 PM

My reasoning for supporting the war and still considering myself a libertarian (or at least as much of one as Megan is) is simply this: I perceived it, and still do, to have been in the long-term interests of American and (happily) Iraqi liberty.

The big-L libertarian suggestion that everything would be peachy keen if we reverted to political and military isolationism is just not intellectually serious. It also isn't possible if we want free trade, which is supposed to be a key libertarian value. We have to be engaged in the world, and that means we'll have enemies, and that means we need a plan for dealing with those enemies and minimizing the harm they can do.

Posted by Dan | November 27, 2007 8:08 PM

Rex barks: "I always assumed that it would be later, and as bad as 9/11 was, I never thought that the American people could be made to appreciate the threat from the Islamists to the extent that we would actually DO SOMETHING about it. I actually thought it would take the inevitable nuke of one of our cities before we got serious about the threat. I was therefore surprised when Bush decided to actually DO SOMETHING about it.

As soon as Bush declared the War on Terror, I knew that we were going into Iraq unless Saddam did some serious tap dancing to avoid it. He didn't, so we did."

That there are still many people who think invading Iraq was a rational response to 9/11 just makes me wonder if we have a whole lot more schizophrenics in our society than we know.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | November 28, 2007 12:08 AM

Moe,

What's the rational, sane case *against* the invasion of Iraq? That it was too expensive? Come on -- we're rich.

Posted by Dan | November 28, 2007 4:46 AM

ML&J,

I never said that going into Iraq was any sort of response to 9/11. Going into Afganistan was the response to 9/11. Going into Iraq was the response to declaring the War on Terror. 9/11 was only the latest in a long string of attacks by Islamists, and as I said in my earlier post, I had thought that it would have taken a nuke in America to finally trigger a meaningful response from us.

Posted by Rex | November 28, 2007 9:18 AM