Seriously, if a country, eg, Iraq, menaces other countries (Israel, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the United States, etc), then the countries menaced by such aggression are entitled to take the necessary steps. Even the more radical libertarians understand this, even if we might debate the facts of each case, the methods, etc.

Also, the country was run by a fascist dictator and his crime family. Perhaps you could explain why it is “communist” to wish to remove such a thug from power. (That is a different question from whether it is, given the problems, wise to do so in certain circumstances).

To talk of removing dictators as “fascist expansionism” either suggests you are mentally retarded or a troll. I’ll have to figure out which.

“People should buy guns and defend themselves, its not the government’s job to protect you, unless you are a cowardly wimp who wants to hide behind the military (a giant, wasteful bureaucratic entity with anti-individualistic communist tendencies).”

LOL.

Those who say otherwise are supporters of a Communist-style Mega Government. What right has a government to expand itself into another nation?

Can’t believe people support such Fascist expansionism.

Rumsfeld was an incompetent parasite who sponged off the US taxpayer. He entered government to line is own pockets, like all the whores in Washington and the Pentagon.

Defend yourselves, you lazy weaklings.

Franks does not come out very well from the Feith book, but in fairness, I have not read Frank’s own account of the war and the events leading up to it, so I would not be so fast to rush to judgement. He may have been stubborn; dumb, no.

Let’s unpack:

“The 19 jihadi Saudis and Egyptians did not result in attacks on Saudi Arabia. But Iraq it did! Oh, what about Pakistan the CREATORS of Taliban and nurturers of Bin Laden? They get more fighter planes and billions in aid! Oh my. It seems like 2002-2004 were times of mass psychosis where every bad argument was swallowed up even by the supposedly cynical libertarians for death and destruction.”

Well leaving aside the silly final sentence, you are of course entirely correct that the terrorists of 9/11, and in relation to other events, came from a number of countries. But you are overlooking the point that the West had to start somewhere in taking down regimes considered to be a threat. Saudi and Pakistan claimed – however shakily – to be trying to co-operate in dealing with such people. I personally think we have been way too lenient on both countries. We should not sell them arms and this is a reason for why I think we must reduce reliance on Saudi oil for security reasons.

So the regime did bad things eh? I see. Do you need me to list all the regimes in this bastard world of ours that have committed atrocities?

Well, just because we cannot deal with all the regimes, does not mean we should not deal with those that we can. Got to start somewhere. In any event, Iraq, given is attacks on neighbours, breaches of ceasefires, support for terror, etc, put itself at the top of the list.

Do you not see how you are beholden to Progressive 20th century notions of bold plans and actions to remake societies instead of the conservative stance of caution? Do you not know enough history to know that “isolationist” is a swear word cooked up by 20th C PROGRESSIVES to diss Conservatives who did not want shit to do with the First World War?

No, I deny the charge. I am not looking to remake anything, and neither are the likes of Doug Feith. I am in the business of arguing that if some regimes are very dangerous, then after an event like 9/11, sitting on my arse and treating terror attacks as a purely law enforcement issue is naive (that is my being polite).

The point about regulations was about proportionality. You ( and I) would rightly denounce and scrutinize very hard the idea of a Green regulatory regime. How then can so callous a reason as “fight them there so we dont fight them here” be applied towards War?

Go and re-read my previous comment. I made it clear that there really is no parallel between the PP and the idea of pre-emptively dealing with a regime known for committing appalling acts. In the latter case, there is evidence, a track record, etc.

So the regime did bad things eh? I see. Do you need me to list all the regimes in this bastard world of ours that have committed atrocities?

Do you not see how you are beholden to Progressive 20th century notions of bold plans and actions to remake societies instead of the conservative stance of caution? Do you not know enough history to know that “isolationist” is a swear word cooked up by 20th C PROGRESSIVES to diss Conservatives who did not want shit to do with the First World War?

The point about regulations was about proportionality. You ( and I) would rightly denounce and scrutinize very hard the idea of a Green regulatory regime. How then can so callous a reason as “fight them there so we dont fight them here” be applied towards War?

Really no one has any business whatsoever calling himself a libertarian if hes ambivalent about the Iraq war in 2011. None at all.

For the life of me I cannot understand how people who are paranoid about the slightest regulatory movement by busybodies and do-gooders can, in ambivalence support an action that imposes death and destruction upon people. If the level of skepticism for, say, a carbon tax is so high on this blog, what should the commensurate level of skepticism about “nation-building” and pre-emptive war be?
In short, are you fucking insane or what?

For a person using the tag “Contemplationist”, that was a remarkably overwrought comment. First off, we are not “paranoid” about regulations: I like to think that libertarians tend to take a more nuanced view: it is STATE regulations that tend to be the problem. Private regulations (such as dress codes in a club, rules governing a private stock exchange, no).

Second, there is a rather massive difference between pre-emptively taking down a regime that has done all the horrendous things Saddam’s did, and threatened to do, on the one hand, and taxing economic activity in the name of an unproven and highly questionable theory (AGW), on the other. I think drawing such a parallel is, to use your expression, “fucking insane”.

That said, there is a very rough similarity between the Precautionary Principle, as invoked by some Greens, and the pre-emption doctrine, as applied to dealing with rogue nations. But I would argue that in the latter case, the proponents have rather a lot of actual evidence to base their ideas on. However, in both cases, it is entirely legitimate for libertarians, and anyone else, to point out that the Precautionary Principle and Pre-emption have costs, such as lost output, potential loss of life, etc.

But remember, even a minimal, libertarian state applies some kind of precautionary principle: we have courts, judges and external defence as a precaution against possible attack, etc.

My objections to the operation were practical ones.

I feared a pro Iranian regime would come to power (I am still concerned about that).

And….

I did not think that it would be worth the lives and, yes, the MONEY the operation would cost.

My opinion has not changed.

However, I despised most of the people in Britain who were against the operation – believing them to be anti American fanatics.

My opinion of them has not changed either.

Jonathan, I’m fascinated how you think the book can establish “as clear fact” particular things in the murky matter of Middle East politics.

The facts are listed in memos from the CIA and others, some of which were not published before. There is a whole collection of this material that Feith lists in his book and which he is now publishing on his own website. What is convincing is that the evidence he gives is not hearsay or suchlike. And he is reliable: a lot of his material can be corroborated and cross-referenced. That is a big plus in my book.

The way he dissects the dissembling of certain people – such as Powell – is deadly because he relies on published comments and actual actions, and then checks them against other facts. This is not just a case of “my word against yours”.

I’m not a great fan of the CIA. But if the choice is between that blowsy agency and the subltly, insight disinterest and grand strategic acumen of the DoD, which he here represents, I could just as easily be.

It is not necessary to put faith in any branch of the US administration. But it stands to reason, given the CIA’s track record in failing to do its basic job – ie, predict and stop 9/11 and suchlike – that that organisation has some self-justification to do. And the advice and commentary coming out of Rumsfeld’s office looks a damn sight more credible than the stuff from Tenet, Armitage or others.

But then I guess I’m one of those people he attempts to slur by suggesting they can be categorised with those he imagines are retrospectively complacent about the Cold War.

Maybe he is, Guy. The point is that an awful lot of people, almost within days of the Berlin Wall coming down, were saying words to the effect that “oh, the Russians were never much of a bother anyway, all that stuff about their armies was just Reaganite propaganda…”. Funny, because a lot of these folk were also claiming that Russia was in some ways the economic equal of the West just a short time before. I don’t recall them saying that it was a paper tiger back in say, 1984.

One thing that libertarians need to grasp is not to assume that we have an either/or choice: security vs liberty. In the case of some libertarians, they try to choose sides by denying that there is much of a problem in the first place.