Antiwar.com Blog

Before anyone calls for my scalp, here’s a link to a non-loony Randian whose work you might enjoy: Arthur Silber, who writes:

I think that a deep understanding of Rand’s ideas, and especially of the unique methodology which she brought to her explicitly philosophic work, would lead one to see that those ideas are fundamentally opposed to the system of corporate statism which so completely dominates the United States today. It is that system which is now inextricably tied to our foreign policy in countless ways, including what appears might be a succession of foreign wars, followed by lengthy periods of occupation. I think a genuine appreciation for Rand’s insights in this area would lead one to oppose that policy in the most forceful terms, as I myself do. And yet, many self-proclaimed admirers of Rand maintain that her views support the current foreign policy of the United States. I believe this is a significant distortion of her work, and of her intellectual legacy.

But some Randians are pretty creepy. Jim Capo sends in his nomination for most obnoxious “libertarian” hawk: Leonard Peikoff and crew at the Ayn Rand Institute. Not that they’re being untrue to Rand’s vision or anything. Check out her own thoughts on collateral damage:

Q: Assume a war of aggression was started by the Soviet Union; assume also that within the Soviet Union, there were many that opposed the aggressive work of the ruling group there. How would you handle that type of problem?

AR: This question is so blatantly wrong that I cannot understand how anyone can entertain it seriously. It assumes that an individual inside a country can be made secure from the social system under which he lives and which he accepts (because he hasn’t left the country). It is the idea that others must surrender to aggression—in other words, be goddamned pacifists, who won’t fight, even when attacked, because they might kill innocent people.

In Soviet Russia, there aren’t very many innocent ones—and they’re mainly in concentration camps.

If you could have a life independent of the system, so that you wouldn’t be drawn into an unjust war, you would not need to be concerned about politics. But we should care about having the right social system, because our lives are dependent on it—because a political system, good or bad, is established in our name, and we bear the responsibility for it. [emphasis mine]

I think Osama bin Laden would agree. For more on the Divine Miss Ayn, see our own Jeremy Sapienza’s “Kill an Arab for Ayn.”

The “neocon is a codeword for Jew” lie, that is. Some great refutations over the last week of this dirty ploy:

*Justin Raimondo (and also see this)

*Gene Healy

*Steven Greenhut

*Calpundit

*Josh Marshall

Feel free to send me any notable links you’ve seen on this topic, and I’ll add them to this list.

UPDATE 1/8: Tristero has his own list.

In an earlier post (now corrected), I stated that Tim Starr is “a San Francisco Libertarian Party member who is a self-proclaimed anarcho-hawk who advocates the elimination of government, except that as long as government exists, it should focus on wiping out radical islamists around the world.”

Tim Starr has written to me to correct and clarify his positions. In fairness, I have corrected the original post and post his email to me here:

---

1) I am not and never have been an SFLP member (I live in Berkeley), although I went to many of their meetings in the mid-1990s and belonged to the California and National LP for several years. I let my membership lapse due to dissatisfaction with the campaigns of LP Presidential candidate Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000. At the time, my concerns about him had nothing to do with foreign policy, although I have disagreed strongly with his foreign policy statements since 9/11/01.

2) I do not advocate “wiping out radical islamists around the world.” That criterion is both too broad and too narrow. It is too broad because there is no need to wipe out “radical Islamists” so long as they confine themselves to peaceful persuasion and other forms of consensual action. It is too narrow because there are other threats to American lives, such as North Korea’s nuclear program.

3) My position is not that the US government ought to pursue the foreign policy goals I think correct “as long as it exists.” My position is that it ought to pursue those foreign policy goals as long as there is no better non-governmental alternative. In the absence of such an alternative, the US government must protect us from being mass-murdered by Islamo-fascist terrorists.

Brendan O’Neill sends along this essay, in which he argues against the tendency of antiwar folks to blame the war on gullible masses taken in by potent propaganda. I’ve probably been guilty of this at times, and I agree with much of what he says, especially this:

Of course propaganda can be persuasive, sometimes even decisive, for individuals making up their minds over whether to support a war, a political party, or whatever. But the influence of propaganda is determined by the broader political climate and by the general level of public debate. In a healthy, critical climate, it is likely that Bush and Blair would have received even more ridicule for their Iraqi propaganda. But at a time when serious political debate is hard to find, our leaders can offer dodgy dossiers and half-cocked claims as if they were good coin. In short, it is often the weakness of the opposition that allows leaders to take their chances with paltry propaganda.

Liberals and the left must shoulder their fair share of the responsibility for the degraded discussion over Iraq and for the opinion polls that suggest a majority of Americans and Britons supported the war. If those who are anti-war spent less time wringing their hands over Big Bad Bush and the fickle people, and more time developing a coherent case against war, then maybe we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. Surely the pro-war lobby is best challenged by being shouted at, rather than shouted about.

I would simply add that ignorance is different from stupidity, and though, yes, we should try our best to ameliorate that ignorance, its sheer depth can be astounding. What does one say, what can one say, to the kick-ass jingo (even one with gobs of raw intelligence) who cannot locate the countries he/she wants bombed? How much can one do in a 1,000-word essay to change that person’s mind? Won’t he/she be much more likely to accept Pentagon/Fox music videos that reinforce his/her gut beliefs? I’ve had friends and family members–ones who can find the countries they want annihilated– compliment me on my work, tell me how it made them think, then go right back to gushing over George Bush and Bill O’Reilly. Sometimes tossing one’s hands up and laughing is the only option.

Didn’t mean to leave out my conservative and liberal/leftist/progressive readers with this post on “libertarian” hawks. Feel free to send me your thoughts on the most obnoxious and the most reasonable hawks of your political stripe. My nominees:

Obnoxious conservative hawk: Oh, God, where to begin? I’ll take David Frum, for whom quotation marks are always in order when the term conservative is used.

Reasonable conservative hawk: It says a lot that George Will is the best choice available, largely for writing this:

To govern is to choose, almost always on the basis of very imperfect information. But preemption presupposes the ability to know things — to know about threats with a degree of certainty not requisite for decisions less momentous than those for waging war.

Some say the war was justified even if WMD are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is “better off” without Saddam Hussein. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny — on to Burma? — it is unacceptable to argue that Hussein’s mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for preemptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the failure — so far — to validate the war’s premise about the threat posed by Hussein’s WMD, but a long-term failure would unravel much of this president’s policy and rhetoric.

Obnoxious liberal/leftist/progressive hawk: Christopher Hitchens. Is there any debate?

Reasonable liberal/leftist/progressive hawk: Hitch again, for as Peter Hitchens pointed out,

For at least the last century war has been the herald and handmaid of socialism and state control. It is the excuse for censorship, organized lying, regulation and taxation. It is paradise for the busybody and the nark.

In other words, it’s perfectly reasonable for an ex-Commie like Chris Hitchens to have supported this war.