Randy Barnett, writing in the Wall Street Journal, says that not all libertarians oppose the war in Iraq.
I'm not sure how many libertarians are on the side of staying the course in Iraq. Certainly there are many anti-libertarian aspects of the war, from the billions it costs to prosecute it to the billions more that must be taxed away to fund it. And yet there are good reasons why some libertarians supported the war in Iraq, and Barnett discusses some of them:
Other libertarians, however, supported the war in Iraq because they viewed it as part of a larger war of self-defense against Islamic jihadists who were organizationally independent of any government. They viewed radical Islamic fundamentalism as resulting in part from the corrupt dictatorial regimes that inhabit the Middle East, which have effectively repressed indigenous democratic reformers. Although opposed to nation building generally, these libertarians believed that a strategy of fomenting democratic regimes in the Middle East, as was done in Germany and Japan after World War II, might well be the best way to take the fight to the enemy rather than solely trying to ward off the next attack.
Moreover, the pro-war libertarians believed there was "legal" cause to take military action against Saddam's regime--from its manifold violations of the ceasefire to firing on American planes legally patrolling the "no fly" zone and its persistent refusals to cooperate with weapons inspections. Saddam's regime was left in power after its unprovoked invasion of Kuwait on these and other conditions that it repeatedly had violated, thereby legally justifying its removal by force if necessary. Better to be rid of Saddam and establish an ally in the war against Islamic jihadists in the heart of the Middle East, the argument goes, and then withdraw American troops.
At the outset of the Iraq war, I had some reservations about whether the United States was fully justified in attacking Iraq, based on the fact that Iraq had not directly attacked the United States. While I wasn't fully certain that defiance of U.N. mandates was necessarily casus belli for the U.S., or that Iraq's shooting at American planes overflying Iraqi air space was especially outrageous (although it may have violated U.N. mandates) -- the attempt to assassinate former president George Herbert Walker Bush may have been sufficient justification for war by itself.
In addition, Saddam Hussein's sponsorship of homicide bombing attacks on Israel to the tune of $25,000 per bombing was sufficient justification for the U.S. to go to war, in my opinion. Israel is a reliable, important, friendly, and sane U.S. ally in the Middle East. If having an ally means anything, it means that an attack on one nation is an attack on all.
In addition, Saddam Hussein's systematic and severe torture of his own people was another independent reason for going to war. We're not talking "torture light" or "talk show torture" -- as in the juvenile pranks at Abu Ghraib. We're talking slowly killing people with acid dripping from ceilings. We're talking crucifying people -- literally. I could offer a million examples, but you'll be glad that I don't.
If the rallying cry of Holocaust survivors -- Never again! -- means anything, it must mean that a regime a murderous as Saddam Hussein's can be legitimately ended by any decent nation on earth. Yes, there's a general rule that nations leave one another alone, just as we leave our neighbors alone (or should). But there's an exception. If I hear my neighbor torturing a small child or perhaps even a small animal, I'm either calling the police or -- in the hypothetical absence of police or any other help -- I'm going over that fence myself. I would not stand by, knowing that an innocent life is being destroyed. How many decent human beings could?
In the international arena, nations have plenty of latitude. But when the killing fields grow too wide and too red, every nation on earth has a moral duty to intervene. Isn't that, in fact, what the left is saying about Darfur?
Also -- and this principle should be universally accepted -- you don't just invade a country, depose its dictatorial leadership, and then leave the nation to be devoured by wolves. Remember, "You break it, you own it?" We're still in the process of putting Iraq back together. Whether it takes a little time or a lot doesn't matter. It's our job. When we're done, it will be a far better place than we found it. Would we rather leave the Iraqis to the slaughter? How faithless! How despicable.
For these reasons and many more, it shouldn't just be the right that wants victory in Iraq. It should be all of us. Anything less is just wrong.
Comments