The
Future of Freedom Foundation| The
Future of Freedom Foundation |
08/21/08
|
|||||||||||||
|
August
20, 2007 We've come to expect Democratic cave-ins by now, but I confess I was disheartened to hear the presidential aspirant Sen. Barack Obama say he would invade Pakistan if he knew Osama bin Laden was there and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan did nothing. Although Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq from the start, he evidently missed a key argument against that folly, for it would apply to the invasion of Pakistan too, namely: the U.S. government cannot throw its military might around the Muslim world without making things far worse than they are. Obama might respond that he simply wants to get justice for the 9/11 attacks, but all that means is that he has no clue why the attacks occurred. As his Republican counterpart Ron Paul has pointed out, the attacks, unjustified as they were, climaxed 50 years of U.S. interference in the affairs of Muslim nations. More interference would hardly improve matters. Rather, it would simply set the stage for more terrorism against Americans. Not only that, it would kill many innocents. Adding Pakistanis to the death roll would hardly be a way to stop terrorists. On the contrary, it would be a new recruitment program for al-Qaeda. My disappointment in Obama was hardly getting started when Sen. Hillary Clinton deflected attention to herself by knocking Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons in the hunt for bin Laden. If I was disappointed in Obama, I was disgusted by Clinton. I suppose it's considered a sign of political maturity to take nothing "off the table," but the threat to use nuclear weapons is not merely a threat to commit mass murder. It is a signal that nothing is beyond the pale. The kind of people who fly airplanes into buildings won't miss that signal. We so blithely talk about war in this country. The possible invasion of Pakistan -- and let's not forget Iran -- is discussed as though it were a Boy Scout project. We never were very good at remembering that in war innocents die. "These things happen in war" is not a defense. Murder is murder. Let's bear in mind that American society is not in danger of destruction. No one is going invade us. What could possibly justify threatening masses of innocent lives? Most critics of the Bush wars fault the occupation of Iraq for diverting the "war on terror" from bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But those critics are more like George W. Bush than they think -- because if the point is to prevent another 9/11, there's something more important than finding bin Laden. What's more important is a complete reassessment of U.S. foreign policy and a rediscovery of the wisdom of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who warned us against an activist foreign policy. They and their philosophical descendents such as William Graham Sumner understood that America cannot keep government limited at home while expanding it abroad. And bombing people and supporting dictators are not effective ways to win admirers. This is not rocket science. Anyone should be able to see the truth of Randolph Bourne's adage, "War is the health of the state." Sixty-two
years ago last week another president, Harry Truman, dropped two atomic
bombs on Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men,
women, and children. Americans may not see the significance of this, but
you can bet that the rest of the world does. Let's stop the bullying and
get our own house in order.
Gary D. Barnett is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Missoula, Montana Tibor Machan holds the R.C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at Chapman University’s Argyros School of B and E and is a research fellow at the Pacific Research Institute and Hoover Institution (Stanford). He is an advisor to Freedom Communications. His most recent book is Libertarianism Defended, (Ashgate, 2006).
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog “Free Association."
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Samuel Bostaph is head of the economics department at the University of Dallas and an academic advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation
Anthony Gregory is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (Palgrave, January 2006) and Terrorism & Tyranny (Palgrave, 2003), and is policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation
Benedict LaRosa is a historian and writer and serves as a policy advisor to The Future of Freedom Foundation
Bart Frazier is program director at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. Send him email. |
Bush and Chavez: A Marriage Made in Hell Shssh! Don't Tell Americans How We Treat "Enemy Combatants" The Pentagon's Power to Jail Americans Indefinitely Our Patience on Iraq Should Be Exhausted Once Again, Gun Control Doesn't Work Bush War Policy Comes Crashing Down Presidential Politics and Foreign Policy Immigration Policy Reveals What We Are Must History Always Repeat Itself? What Freedoms Did Americans Celebrate on the Fourth? Yes to Recriminations against Iraq Policymakers A Bogus Libertarian Defense of War Complete Archives for The Future of Freedom Foundation  |
|||||||||||
