Comments on: The War Question

By: Joshua

Joshua — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:35:09 +0000

I don’t feel like I know enough about the war to draw an objective conclusion either, but I do have a quotation from Ayn Rand that I do think applies to the issue anyway.

“The army of a free country has a great responsibility; the right to use force, but not as an instrument of compulsion and brute conquest–as the armies of other countries have done in their histories–only as an instrument of a free nations self-defense, which means: the defense of a man’s individual rights.”

–Ayn Rand, March 6, 1974, “Philosophy: Who Needs It?”

It seems to me that the Iraq war has been fought with more of an emphasis on other issues than in order to defend our individual rights.

I also believe that the so-called “War on Terror” has changed dramatically since it began. Does anyone remember Afghanistan? Me either.

By: AdamP

AdamP — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 03:34:59 +0000

I believe personally, and Objectivism believes that there is one correct view on everything.

I simply don’t know what it is with absolutely certainty.

By: Mosley

Mosley — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 19:47:11 +0000

I donâ€™t think there can be one right view on this subject. It is far to large of an issue for one person to know every thing about it. Even fellow objectivist canâ€™t agree. But thatâ€™s why I posted this, so we can talk about it and hopefully learn from each other.

By: AdamP

AdamP — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:49:48 +0000

I think you’re implying that there’s a distinction between a willing (”let them”) human shield and an unwilling one. I would agree on this, but the two can sometimes be hard to tell apart, and I would say that we should be cautious when we cannot tell the difference.
I also think that the U.S. policy of non-assassination is flawed because we allow private individuals to target us with no recourse but full-scale war. If, as the Bush administration seems to claim, Osama was a radical acting without state support, then an assassination or covert capture mission would seem appropriate. The only reason that we don’t engage in such missions is that there are presidential orders declaring that we won’t (orders from prior presidents, not Bush). Apparently, international law doesn’t forbid assassination of declared enemies, and I doubt the rest of the world would have public uproar over assassinating a confessed killer. (Some of the 9.11 Conspiracy guys claim Osama’s confession tape is too low-quality to see if it’s him, but there are subsequent tapes that show him clearly discussing 9.11 as if he had done it.)

In short, rather than invading Afghanistan, and certainly rather than invading Iraq, we could have simply flooded Afghan territory with covert agents seeking to kill Osama.

By: Mosley

Mosley — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:38:45 +0000

I read that article too awhile ago, I forgot about that one.

Like I sad I am not an expert on the War and itâ€™s nice to know that there are people here to discus this with. I will read that article again and see if I come up with the same findings.

Also I think I like the other guys article because it remained me of Gen. Sherman (Civil War) saying â€œWar is Hellâ€, as he burned whole cities to the ground. I do think that if are enemy is hides behind civilians and/or a countryâ€™s government we will have to kill them both. Maybe that would motivate them not to let our enemies use them as shields.

By: AdamP

AdamP — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:56:17 +0000

I think the article you reference is more of a neo-con viewpoint than a truly Objectivist viewpoint. http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-winter/no-substitute-for-victory.asp this link connects to John Lewis’s essay, “No Substitute for Victory: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism.”

There are some important and subtle differences between the two.
I’d like to point out, first, that under the Ayn Rand’s original Objectivist vision of government, the use of force is tightly codified and regulated. As a corollary to this, we can imagine that the use of military might would also be tightly controlled. The Lewis essay demands that government issue a declaration of war, attack an enemy state directly, and follow out clearly specified objectives. The Brook/Journo article, on the other hand, advocates the use of force against innocent civilians for the sake of “ruthlessness” and inflicting terror. The Lewis article advocates identification of the state as an enemy in war while civilian casualties are acceptable, while Brook seems to think that the subjugated populace is a fit target in itself.
Another subtle difference is that Lewis analyzes WWII through the war and until peaceful resolution had been permanently legally secured, while Brook’s analysis stops at surrender. This is troubling because Brook and Journo seem to imply that the permanent peace we enjoy with Japan and Germany is the miraculous by-product of slaughter. Lewis understands that the people supporting the enemy regime are most frequently unwilling to do so, and the binding institutions of freedom and non-imperialism are greeted warmly.
Thus Bush’s failure is not, as Brook and Journo claim, that he has not killed enough Iraqis or invaded enough countries. Bush’s failure is that the Iraqi Constitution is not a document that ensures freedom and protects Iraqi citizens. If the document separated church and state properly, the police forces could efficiently battle religious factions and the US could have left Iraq to its own resources years ago. While there are some key strategic differences, it was obvious in WWI and WWII that one should not return complete autonomy to a defeated enemy, and it should be obvious now.