My More Libertarian Views on War

Great video:

I used to be a Republican Hawk, I think the roots go back to so many members of my family being WWII vets, and the Nazis being the ideal boogey man in every discussion. Kicking Nazi ass was pretty cool. Still when you look at all the politicians in Western Europe and America who loved Hitler and what he was doing, and all our isolationism UNTIL Pearl Harbor that gets glossed over in the history books DOES spoil that bloom a good bit.

Also it appears that WWII was the exception that proves the rule for United States war intervention generally is a waste of life and money. The only war in my lifetime that I still stand behind is the Iraq War, but that’s ONLY because Saddam was violating a peace treaty from the Gulf War that we really should have stayed out of in the first place too.

Also I’ve become a LOT more of a cynic for “Good Wars”. Say the American Civil War (which wasn’t a civil war anyway, it was a failed secession), While I of course abhor slavery, that wasn’t what the war was about, and do you think if the South had won they would still have slaves there? They would have simply learned the lessons taught by the Northern “Robber Barons” in that its MUCH cheaper to have free laborers that you pay shit, and treat like fodder, who at the end of their shift have to look for their own clothes, food, and shelter, rather than human chattel who you have to care for around the clock.

Just like in the North, it would have lead to labor unions and rights, and what we would end up with is a country wayy better than the one we have just North of Mexico, and just south of what could be considered “South Canada”. Hell I’m immigrate to a 21st Century Confederate States of America, if my projections are correct.

Also look at what a totalitarian dump Germany has become, and all of this is under a rather Soviet-esque European Union. Do you really think once all the Jews and Gypsies fled Europe, Hitler died of Natural causes and new “Reform Nazis” started doing what politicians do the Third Reich would look much different than the EU of today?

Also while it would suck if we didn’t have a South Korea, didn’t the fall of the Soviet Union really teach us that the best way to kill a massive Communist Empire is to LET it spread?

I’m hardly a history buff, so my projections could be WAYYY off. A few of you know this stuff way better than I do. What do you think?

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to My More Libertarian Views on War

  1. Will Brown says:

    tl;dr No.

    If you want to destroy a socialist state without invading the place, prevent it from obtaining the added wealth it could acquire from some neighbor state and contain it within its own borders. This is a more drawn out process, and honestly probably just as financially expensive as war (though the cash lay-out occurs over a longer timespan too), and is likely just as hard on the subject population as well (if in a generally less dramatic fashion and more languid pace). The containing state(s) can claim the morally superior position and can regulate to some degree just how horrible conditions become in the failing socialist state.

    To defeat a socialist state you either conquer it, or confine it to its existing boundaries and let the inevitable structural failure process occur.

  2. Formynder says:

    Not to nitpick too much, but it’s seccession, not succession. No monarchies here!

    That being said, I’m inclined to agree with most of your post. I think that the Afghanistan campaign was fully justified, but would have been better served by just sacking the country and leaving. Same end result, much less spent, fewer deaths, fewer of a new generation of recruits, and a much more pointed lesson on not messing with the U.S.

    • Weerd Beard says:

      I don’t even know about that. Yeah the Taliban were bad guys, and allies to Al Quaeda, it was Al Quaeda who attacked us, so maybe a few cruise missiles or SEAL or other black bag team strikes, but I don’t even think the invasion was worth the effort.

  3. Geodkyt says:

    WWII wasn’t an “interventionalist” war.

    We were attacked, and the allies of that nation that attacked us then declared war on us. FDR looked at Hitler and said, “OK, Burger King, you CAN have it your way.”

    Iraq, I fully agree with you. Iraq was in violation of -NOT a peace treaty- but a mere ceasefire. The 1991 Gulf War (legally) did not end until 2003, it just went on hiatus while we ignored the ceasefire violations (much as the 1950 Korean War still legally continues). (However, note that one of the main reasons for selecting Saddam as the second player in the game of, “Dangerous twits we ought to take down” was the “Flypaper Strategy” of convince the Islamic nutjobs to come after us in Iraq, where the battlefield was ever so much more advantageous to us, rather than hunt the little goat humpers up and down the Afghan hills. Worked, too. Would have worked better had we employed the very cynical, “Well, they’re bastards, but now they’re our bastards” strategy and not shut down the Iraqi Army, other than a handful of truly evil SOBs. But, we simply cannot admit that, in some cases, a transparently thin veneer of democracy on top of a light blanket of “strongman” truly is a better solution – for now – than trying to dump Western style liberal democratic traditions on a nation that only recalls corrupt strongmen or corrupt fascist rulers.)

    Afghanistan? Welp, harboring the non-state actors who committed acts of war has long been considered casus belli. Had the Taliban handed over OBL and the AQ Crew, or even just looked the other way while we fetched them, no war. As for rebuilding it afterwards, I do believe that history has shown that, short of a Rome vs. Carthage final act, it is generally best to try to ensure a stable system in a defeated enemy before leaving, without grinding them halfway to dust (ref: post WWI Germany vs. post WWII Germany). Had the war been conducted as a retalitory raid (albeit large scale), “smash ‘em up and leave” would have been an option — but once it was determined (and correctly, IMNSHO) that the Taliwhackoes would simply support the next infestation of Islamic nutjobs (being Islamic nutjobs themselves), leaving them in charge afterwards was a non-functional response. We did screw up the postgame party by:

    A. Trying to force an Afghan state as a unitary national entity. Never worked, probably never will — Afghanistan is a tribal nation. But, proposing breaking it up into a loose federation was a non-starter, politically, and doing nothing (which is what the West did after the Soviets left) was how the Taliban was created.

    B. Announcing withdrawal dates, which simply told the enemy how long they needed to wait us out while maintaining “viability” locally. The whole reason Osama bin Chummin’ thought he could pull 9-11 and get away with it and the whole reason the Taliban thought they could blow us off when we asked for his head was because they figured the United States would give up and go home after very little time (probably after little more than random, scattered airstrikes — after all, the entire time OBL had been an actual player and the Taliban had even existed, that was how the US rolled).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>