Cato’s Radley Balko has posted an 8,000-word response over at Tech Central Station to my piece earlier this month on what I termed “libertarian minimalism” in foreign policy.
I’ll have a longer response to Balko’s piece sometime in the near future. I don’t particularly think it does much more than restate the extreme libertarian position that we should withdraw from virtually all overseas engagements — with some nice libertarian I-told-you-so outrage about Iraq and even September 11 thrown in to boot — but, again, I’ll get to that later.
In the meantime, I leave it to readers to decide for themselves whether Balko blames America for 9/11 — because, apparently, we didn’t listen to Cato — or whether I’m being “unserious”:
If you look at much of what Cato’s foreign policy team wrote prior to 9/11, you could make the case that had U.S. policymakers paid more attention to actual “libertarian minimalist,” “pre-9/11″ thinking, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.
Back in 1999, for example, Cato’s director of defense policy studies at the time, Ivan Eland, wrote “Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?” In it, Eland laid out a litany of terrorist strikes against U.S. interests that were inspired by unnecessary U.S. interventions in foreign conflicts that posed little threat to our national security. Eland warned — and bin Laden later confirmed — that more recent U.S. interventions, in Kosovo, Somalia, and even Gulf War I, could soon provoke a catastrophic attack on the U.S. homeland.
Actually, anyone who takes the War on Terror seriously probably wouldn’t mention Somalia while making the case for American retreat. Somalia, after all, as this Time profile recounts, is where bin Laden learned an important lesson:
In 1993, 18 U.S. soldiers, part of a contingent sent on a humanitarian mission to famine-struck Somalia, were murdered by street fighters in Mogadishu. Bin Laden later claimed that some of the Arab Afghans were involved. The main thing to bin Laden, however, was the horrified American reaction to the deaths. Within six months, the U.S. had withdrawn from Somalia. In interviews, bin Laden has said that his forces expected the Americans to be tough like the Soviets but instead found that they were “paper tigers” who “after a few blows ran in defeat.” Bin Laden began to think big.
Interesting. What was that about the virtue of retreat? Or whatever you want to call it?
Here’s the reason why I think your original column has garnered so much response. It wasn’t just your substanceless attack on traditional libertarian foreign policy thinking. That would have been bad enough. But to call it “unserious”? That’s a much higher standard of proof for you to meet, and you haven’t even come close. As you know, many libertarian positions are well out of the mainstream. Most people disagree with us most of the time, and very strongly. That’s fine. We are probably in a permanent minority. But our viewpoints are indeed serious. You may disagree with our premises, you may disagree with our prudential judgment on a particular issue, but to say we’re not being serious is itself unserious.
On your specific point about Somalia, this is the logic of adventurism. Because a move might be perceived as weak, then we shouldn’t do it, even if there is no national security interest in prolonging the adventure. Should we have been in Somalia in the first place? Why? If there was no good reason to get involved, what was the good reason to stay involved? To show Bin Laden that we’re willing to put our troops in harm’s way on a battlefield of no strategic importance? To prove to him that we’re idiots?
We’re doing that daily in Iraq. And anyway, I thought Bin Laden wasn’t that important. Aren’t you, like Dubya, “not that concerned about him.”
The problem with your overall argument, Sager, is that you’re forgeting that there can never be complete agreement on foreign policy, even when groups of people agree on the overall objective. Because foreign policy deals with how countries must handle situations with a variety of foreign powers and crises, you have to come up with different solutions for each unique situation.
This ultimately means that even interventionist conservatives will disagree. Soo expect libertarians to come up with some sort of uniform approach outside of a minimalist one is ridiculous.
Don’t believe it. Consider the wrangling over one piece of major foreign policy in the last century: Cold War-era containment. George Kennan, who authored the original concept, modified his own thinking a number of times during the early years of the Cold War. He didn’t think that the Soviet Union was an immediate threat to Western Europe. Much of his later thinking could be seen in the Marshall Plan, which was supposed to make Europe an independent third force between the twin superpowers of the U.S. and the Soviet Union. That never really happened.
The policy that ultimately became associated with Kennan actually was the Truman doctrine, shaped by his fellow anti-Soviet types in the Truman administration, who had different concerns. Besides Europe’s economic woes, they were also concerned with America’s wrangling with the Soviets to get some sort of a settlement on the shape and form of post-WWII Germany and the growing cadre of Communists trying to take over France and Italy.
These were anti-communists who agreed that Communism should be fought. Yet they disagreed on the approach. That happened again decades later when stalwarts of the old-style were battling with Ronald Reagan & Co.The former long thought the U.S. should approach containment from a purely defensive position — including missile test treaties — because they thought the Soviets would eventually admit that Communism was a failure. Reagan & Co., on the other hand, supported a unilateral missile buildup. Why? Because would point out that the Soviets hadn’t admitted anything even after all these years and worse, they were gaining ground. Reagan ultimately won the day, updating containment for another era.
Debating the values of foreign policy approaches isn’t some useless exercise. It’s how the best ideas — and the most successful approaches in foreign policy — win the day. If the Frum-Wolfowitz branch of conservatism was more willing to debate and change its ideas, perhaps the United States wouldn’t be in such a quagmire.
I think you and Balko are talking past each other because you’re trying to discuss policies when your real disagreement is about premises.
There’s two general explantions for 9/11:
1. AQ was offended by US support for Israel and dictators (libertarian doves, paleocons, liberals)
2. AQ is trying to establish Muslim supremacy to prevent Arab culture from being wiped out by Hollywood (libertarian hawks, neocons, other hawks)
If option 1 is true Balko’s policy follows. If 2 is true Balko’s recommendations are folly and we have to take agressive action to win the war. But if you can’t agree on the premise arguing policy is a waste of time.
I loved your “Rethinking Libertarian Minimalism” article, and I found the dismissive tone appropriate. I pile on the debate at my blog. (Ryan: feel free to link.)
Let me argue with Karl, too. AQ was angered by Israel’s actions against the Palestinians, of course, but I don’t think Balko’s position follows. Yes, we were attacked because of our involvement in the Middle East; but if we weren’t involved in the Middle East, the Israelis would have been massacred long ago. It gets down to the question of whether libertarianism is a form of egoism or a form of idealism. From the egoist’s point of view, a second Holocaust is none of our business. From the idealist’s point of view, we should by all means care, and fight to prevent that if necessary.
I find the anti-totalitarian streak to be the most persuasive and appealing strand in libertarian thought. The egoist strand, I feel, is deeply flawed. Society can’t work if everyone is just looking out for themselves.
Any serious libertarian foreign policy has to deal with the aggressiveness that is inherent in the more strident forms of Islam, currently called islamist. Unless you have libertarian answers to dhimmitude, what a new caliphate would mean for us, and the universal jurisdiction of islamic religious judicial decrees, you’re simply not seriously analyzing our current foreign policy needs.
Nobody makes films about Muhammad. That’s because they’ll kill you if you do something as simple as showing his face and it doesn’t matter if you’re in the US or the Netherlands. That’s the sort of liberty robbing equation that unserious libertarian analysts simply do not address. Theo van Gogh got killed on the streets for making a movie and nobody says boo in Hollywood but Pat Sajak wondering at the silence.
What is wrong with you people? Can’t you see how you’ve internalized the repression?
TM and Lancelot Finn:
It’s nice to see such continued condescension from people who continually believe that their line of thinking is not only the best in the market place, but it’s God-chosen. A more worldly person can’t help but conclude that such hubris renders your arguments unserious.
As for your argument that a “serious libertarian foreign policy” has to deal with the aggressiveness inherent in militant islam. That’s ridiculous. For one thing, foreign policy can never really deal with such cultural issues. After all, foreign policy is the study of one country deals with another; while understanding cultures can help — such as in the area of customs and rituals — foreign policy is ill-equipped to deal with cultural change. To demand libertarians to deal with something that no conservative or lefty could figure out through the use of foreign policy, is truly being unserious.
However, one can use other forms of sciences to figure out ways to change cultures, which is what you’re really talking about here. One is anthropology. the other: Economics. It can help one understand how the Koran affects economic progress in the Muslim world.
For example, Islamic law calls for one’s property to be divided equally among his or her children (or in the case of the women, almost equally.) This goes counter to the way inheritence works in Western culture, where you can give away your legacy as you see fit. The result of such rules: Family businesses cannot be sustained beyond the first generation because they can’t be kept together in whole. This also means that there isn’t a large enough economic base to help lead to a free market. Without free markets, you can’t eventually foster the kind of progress needed to move Muslims into western norms.
RiShawn–
Foreign policy has to deal with cultural issues when they determine if a war is avoidable or inevitable. Anthropology and economics provide grounds for decisions but the actions are in foreign policy. A classic case is the US entry into WWII, where economic and cultural factors drove the US into a confrontation with Japan. The foreign policy choice was economic sanctions, and war resulted.
Now we have a cultural and economic clash with the Islamofascists. That has to be factored into foreign policy decisions or they won’t reflect the real world.
“Nobody makes films about Muhammad. That’s because they’ll kill you if you do something as simple as showing his face and it doesn’t matter if you’re in the US or the Netherlands. That’s the sort of liberty robbing equation that unserious libertarian analysts simply do not address.”
TM, I don’t know much about you, but if you think there’s much for a libertarian to say about a religious crackpot who performs the most liberty-nullifing act one can do that wouldn’t be redundant when compared to the act of anyone who kills another in cold blood, I question how well you understand libertarians and what drives them. Theo van Gogh was murdered by someone who had no right of self-defense against him and no libertarian I know would accept that. It’s so cut-and-dried that I’m not surprised at all relatively little has been said.
But since you want proof of libertarians or libertarian-leaning persons “addressing” the murder…
Stephan Kinsella, Lewrockwell blog: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/006445.html
Matt Welch, Hit & Run: http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2004/11/holland_on_edge.shtml
Randall McElroy, Catallarchy: http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2004/11/08/my-enemys-enemy-is-himself/
Virginia Postrel: http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/001460.html
Johnathan Pearce, Samizdata: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006917.html
David Carr, Samizdata: http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006879.html
Natalie Solent: http://nataliesolent.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_nataliesolent_archive.html#110069134580168781 … http://nataliesolent.blogspot.com/2004_11_14_nataliesolent_archive.html#110069553678156155
Greg Ransom: http://www.hayekcenter.org/prestopunditarchive/004921.html … http://www.hayekcenter.org/prestopunditarchive/004963.html
Tom Palmer: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/015444.php
James Pinkerton: http://www.techcentralstation.com/111804D.html
John Venlet: http://www.improvedclinch.com/comments.php?id=P1526_0_1_0 … http://www.improvedclinch.com/comments.php?id=P1516_0_1_0_C
Greg Swann: http://www.presenceofmind.net/2004_11_28_archive.html#110183718819700917
Few of those blog posts are likely to rise to your definition of serious discussion, but I felt like looking them up anyway.
I think one of Mr. Balko’s central points is crucial to reiterate: how is it that significant, thought-out, and elaborated disagreement with an aggressive and invasive foreign policy automatically makes one “unserious”?
“Unless you have libertarian answers to dhimmitude, what a new caliphate would mean for us, and the universal jurisdiction of islamic religious judicial decrees, you’re simply not seriously analyzing our current foreign policy needs.”
The principled libertarian, in my opinion, would advocate armed resistence to any entity or group that attempted the violent overthrow of a peaceful person’s life and property. That libertarian would say anyone who attempts such a task is a monster and putting that person or group down would be a legitimate act of self-defense. That libertarian would also say it would be prudent and wise to have the capacity at hand to repel such people before they attempt it, possibly scaling to the point where the widespread ownership of weapons of self-defense would give pause to any rational person thinking about such a widespread act of aggression. Irrational actors might attempt such a mission anyway, but by their very irrational nature, they won’t accomplish their goals and get away unscathed.
The “universal jurisdiction” question is nonsense until they have the power to enforce that jurisdiction. Regarding terrorism as the means to do that, I will quite simply say there is no way to remain compatible with the principle of individual freedom for peaceful actors AND effectively stop even a majority of terrorist acts before they occur. I value freedom over security, partially because a great deal of my security is derived from my freedom to act and to own.
Again, assuming you mean a caliphate to be an Islamic theocracy imposed on us without our consent, it should not be a stretch of imagination AT ALL to wonder what a principled libertarian would believe: individual freedom, property rights, reason, and the defense of all three.
Karl Gallagher - I went through every link on your list and could find precious little in the way of policy that would actually cure the problem and I’m not all that sure all of the sources you linked to fall into the Balko school of foreign policy minimalism, especially Samizdata.net. I’ve never made the case that libertarian foreign policy has to be this way or is this way in all corners of the libertarian intellectual sphere. I’d be a fool to do so as I’m a libertarian.
That being said, there was remarkably little in the way of policy prescription in the posts you decided to link, no real practical answers to the questions I posed, though your less than meticulous linking practices makes me suspect that this might say more about you than them.
Charles Hueter - My problem isn’t that there isn’t a muscular foreign policy alternative for libertarians to promote in the public square. There is and you lay one out pretty well. My problem is that too many libertarians don’t recognize an international coercive movement when it’s staring them in the face and proceed to move forward with their tired advocacy of retreat and timidity in the face of aggression.
US behavior can shift our position on the target list. If we’re good little dhimmis, the Islamists will eat us last, but if we fight for the proposition that there should be no target list, we shoot right to the top. Libertarians who want to be good little dhimmis, well, I hope their chains are light.
On the question of universal jurisdiction, you can bet that Theo van Gogh was killed pursuant to a fatwa that called for his death. When any muslim can enforce any fatwa, all you need to have are unassimilated muslims in your country that follow foreign imams and you have a practical application of the problems of universal jurisdiction.
Gallagher:
What role did economics and cultural matters factor into the ultimate decision by the U.S. to go to war with Japan? Nowhere actually. When Roosevelt decided to wage war, he had a number of considerations, most of them related to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and harboring ambitions of empire. Those things are what Kissinger would call realpolitik and not a thing to do with cultural considerations.
In fact, a major reason why foreign policy fails is because it cannot fully consider cultural and economic issues. It’s dealing with the political, usually the ultimate political consideration of whether a nation is attempting to bomb your homeland out of existence. Or as with the British during the 17th-20th centuries, controlling natural resources. When the British and French decided to divvy up the Middle East for themselves after WWI, they created boundaries that had no consideration of such matters as, say, whether a territory was long a Kurdish homeland or why Arabs and Jews don’t get along and won’t no matter whether you hand off Palestine to one of the groups or not. Perhaps if the British actually concerned themselves with cultural issues, we wouldn’t have the problems we have in the Middle East today.
But Mr. Gallagher, that would require thought.
Folks,
The discussion of the abject failure of U.S. foriegn policy in the Middle East must go all the way back the CIA coup in Iran in
1953 which brought the Shan & the Savak to power. It’s been blowback and escalation ever since.
Among other things embarassing to me, as a libertarian, is Sager’s
ahistorical view. He looks at the current context and claims we must get muscular, with *no* recognition that that has been the overwhelming choice to date, clandestinely and otherwise. The blowback (9/11) has continued and it will continue, while Sager argues for further escalation. Where’s the end of that tunnel, Sager??!! Obliteration of 2 billion Muslims? Nukeing Iran into oblivion as Lenny Peikoff of the Ayn Rand Institute called for?
Lets just nuke the whole Middle East and get it over with, eh? No more worries then!
And what’s all this talk about Bin Laden? Iraq didn’t have crap to do with BL or 9/11 (until now, at least). Choose your targets, eh, folks!!
So, what the frig are you, Sager? A maximalist? One thing for
sure, as I see it, you are an embarassment to libertarianism!!
libertarian larry - Idaho
READ “ALL THE SHAH’S MEN: CIA COUP AND THE ROOTS OF MIDDLE EAST
TERRORISM”, TO GET YOUR BRAIN WORKING.
TM, if with “less than meticulous linking practices” you were referring to me and not Mr. Gallagher I can only express resignation. The system rejected attempts to post proper HTML links.
“My problem is that too many libertarians don’t recognize an international coercive movement when it’s staring them in the face and proceed to move forward with their tired advocacy of retreat and timidity in the face of aggression.”
Perhaps we’re getting to the point where this should be moved off the comments section of this blog, but I travel in mostly libertarian circles and no one I know advocates literally giving in to Islamic (or otherwise) aggression. Similarly, I can’t recall a single libertarian I know of who won’t recognize the danger of religious fundamentalists organized around a general philosophy of aggression and forced submission. If you could point to examples to both, I’d appreciate it. And no, advocating that we don’t kick bee hives is NOT the same as advocating we quietly lay on our backs to accept the stingers.
“US behavior can shift our position on the target list. If we’re good little dhimmis, the Islamists will eat us last, but if we fight for the proposition that there should be no target list, we shoot right to the top. Libertarians who want to be good little dhimmis, well, I hope their chains are light.”
Again, perhaps you’ve read a wider variety of libertarians online that I, but no one I know of is calling for unconditional surrender. If I’m mischaracterizing you, then you ought to reevaluate the kind of rhetoric on display above. No honest libertarian wants to be enslaved. Wouldn’t make them much of a libertarian, would it?
Assuming you don’t have a serious objection to the kind of foreign policy I outlined in my previous comment and assuming it were actually in place, would that lead to the nightmare scenario you describe above? If yes, please say so in order to get this discussion aimed at some useful level.
“When any muslim can enforce any fatwa…”
Any American, Mexican, or Russian can pick up a weapon and justify any number of horrific activities in the name of obscure edicts from abroad. What’s your point? Like I said previously, I see a very real and very unavoidable trade-off between wanting government-provided security and wanting individual freedom. How would you deal with the problem of a radical imam declaring me a target in this reality where people are free to act as they want? How would you do this and still remain faithful to libertarian principles?