We have a lot of libertarian friends around here and for that I’m very grateful. But that gets me into arguments all the time about the proper role of the American Military in the world.
I was reading Gerard Vanderleun and he used a phrase that I think will clarify my position.
Or if you like: nations are a bunch of outlaw biker gangs competing for territory and trade.
The only thing an American retreat will cause is a war among the remaining interested powers for who will be #1. Just as an FBI/DEA take down of the strongest gang in town will cause a war over the newly released resources.
Now my libertarian friends are perfectly capable of understanding such relations domestically. But put the appellation “nation” in front or behind the gang’s usual identifier and the libertarians get all stupid. Worse if the gang has no nation. I have had the good fortune to live with an outlaw biker gang for about 3 years. The “rules” are ingrained in my bones. Most of my on line friends have not been so lucky. They prefer Marquess of Queensberry rules. Fine. Except the rest of the world doesn’t play by those rules. And if we are going to play by those rules they will have to be enforced. (By whom?) We are back to square one.
PDF 
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
9 Comments until now
The only thing an American retreat will cause is a war among the remaining interested powers for who will be #1
Very true. While I know that people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are bright and principled, they nevertheless seem very naive. Perhaps they needed a few wild years in an outlaw biker gang.
See, that’s the thing you’ve missed about libertarians – they would be more upset by the FBI and DEA than the outlaw biker gangs in the first place.
Unless the outlaw bike gang is directly harming the libertarian, they would be content to let them be. Maybe buy a few extra boxes of ammo.
The same applies to foreign affairs – rather than being the world’s police – FBI/DEA, the military would only be used when the country itself is directly at peril.
Would that be any less effective than what we’ve done in the middle east? Which is basically the law enforcement equivalent of Waco.
Jeremy,
What you are leaving out is that the transition to your utopia will be a world war.
After which there may be exactly zero chance of the utopia you desire.
You have to start from where you are at. You are starting out from where you would like to be. Thus Libertarian utopianism.
So until you can show me a plan that has powers #2 through #180 transitioning peacefully…..
And in a world where significant explosives are no more than 30 minutes from any other part of the world how exactly do you plan to deter that sort of thing? Load up on missiles and missile defenses (ammunition)? You cannot conduct a foreign policy without occupying territory.
Also how do you prevent the “Paper Tiger” perception without going to war reasonably often?
Me? I propose waiting 50 or 100 years – until the world is a LOT more civilized – for the transition you hope for.
On the world scene there is no FBI/DEA – just gangs. And your point about the DEA/FBI is not germane to a gangs-R-US world. In such a world it does not matter if a “higher power” takes out #1 or if #1 just gives up. (ala the Brits post WW1)
We are in the unfortunate position of riding the tiger. We will have to ride it until the tiger tires. If we can.
As to the Middle East. – I’d say our adventures there have been relatively successful. And you may not read it in the papers but the gangs over there now have to consider: will it piss off the Americans enough to invite unwanted “guests”? A worthwhile thing to keep on the minds of adventurers and despots.
Osama is no longer a popular name in the ME. Minds have been changed. Which is the purpose of war. To settle irreconcilable differences.
Frank,
With it as usual.
“What you are leaving out is that the transition to your utopia will be a world war.”
It’s gonna happen anyway. I don’t want to play your war game.
“We will have to ride it until the tiger tires. If we can. ”
You go ahead and do that. I’m not on the tiger and I won’t be getting on.
Critic,
You live on this planet? You will be playing the game. It is like thermodynamics.
You can’t win.
You can’t break even.
You can’t quit the game.
Trotsky once explained it to you. Perhaps you were not listening.
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
I once came from your point of view. I’m a ‘Nam Vet. So I decided to study the subject to see what I could do about it. The conclusion I came to: “you only get peace through superior fire power”.
There will be a #1. I prefer the US to China, Russia, or decided by a World War. YMMV.
To start your education may I suggest B.H.L. Heart’s “Strategy” which covers about 2,500 years of war. Up through the end of WW2.
The currency of the realm is no longer Empire, but Commerce. Are we getting our money’s worth? A trillion dollars a year would buy a lot of nuclear power and infrastructure here at home. Can you describe the strategic goals of American military policy and how well understood it is by the citizens of the US and others around the world? Can you please fill me in on which wars are being suppressed by our tax dollars and trillion dollar military? There are only 3 possible wars that are economically and demographically possible. 1 isn’t our problem at all and is a weird holdover from the cold war(Korea), 1 we would lose beyond a first strike (China), and 1 that would crash the world economy without buying any benefit in the unlikely event a victory strategy could be formulated (Iran). The permanent war state is a feature dreamed up by lovers of federal power, federal contracts and the permanent security state and bears no resemblance to the threats we actually face or the benefits derived from our empire.
The permanent war state is a feature dreamed up by lovers of federal power, federal contracts and the permanent security state and bears no resemblance to the threats we actually face or the benefits derived from our empire.
Uh. No.
The Permanent War State is a function of our status as the #1 power.
You might want to get familiar with the history of the British Empire. Or the Roman Empire.
BTW with the coming dissolution of the Middle East we are going to be very glad to have a large Army.
See:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA24Ak02.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA10Ak01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MK29Df03.html
Feel free to address any of the questions presented, rather than the fairly obvious tweak.
Is your contention that the US policy is to intervene with our military, lives, and dollars wherever something happens or could happen, because “we’re number one”, with no regard to cost or strategic importance? 6 times the military spending of the #2 spender, over twice the GDP , and per Mr. Goldman even that isn’t enough. Is there any limit? Is there even a strategy to be served that you can describe?
Add your Comment!