We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Eminent blogger Alex Knapp of Heretical Ideas thinks beyond the impending war against Iraq
As you can tell by the title of this post, this discussion isn’t about whether or not it’s ‘properly libertarian’ for the U.S. to wage war against Iraq. I’m going to assume that as a given. The question that has been running around in my mind is this: what is the libertarian case for regime change? Or, to be more specific, there’s a clear libertarian case for toppling a government that proves itself to be a danger. I don’t think any libertarian thinks that, once World War II started, the only goal of the Allies was to contain Germany within its borders. Clearly, Hitler and the Nazis posed a danger, and it would have been suicide for the world to simply let them rebuild again. However, what about the aftermath? Is there a libertarian case for the Marshall Plan, rebuilding the nations of the former Axis powers, etc.? This is a particularly vital point of discussion when it comes to Iraq.
The Libertarian case for Marshall Plans
First, let’s look at a ‘Marshall Plan’ for Iraq. At first glance, it looks like the libertarian case is easy: ‘we’re against it.’ After all, libertarian theory relies heavily on the idea that neither state-supported safety nets nor foreign humanitarian aid are moral or effective. Yet a Marshall Plan would seem to combine qualities of both. However, there are several factors that differentiate the rebuilding of a country after a war from the twin devils of welfare and foreign aid. → Continue reading: Libertarians and regime change
In discussing the options that are before the Israelis I wish to make it clear that I do not, personally, wish to see any of them unfold. I am merely resigned to the fact that one of them will unfold. This is analysis not advocacy and I have to make this point crystal clear because there are seemingly no end of people who are unable to distinguish those two things.
Now if I had my way, I would like to see some sort of negotiated political settlement that would bring a sort-of peace, or, at least, some measurable abatement in the level of violence. However, such an outcome would require not just an ideal world but a whole other world because it is not going to happen in this one. In this world, negotiations, conventions, conferences and processes are nought but an exercise in futility. You don’t just have to take my word for that, you can refer to Article 13 of the Hamas Covenant:
“Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…
Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters.”
A self-fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. Still, if you were to ask the Palestinians they would probably argue that it was nothing more than an affirmation of an extant reality. As far as they are concerned, it’s Jihad or it’s nothing.
→ Continue reading: Israel .vs. Palestine (Part II)
Following on from Perry’s reference to the event on Saturday, and prompted by Brian Micklethwait, I have decided to commit my presentation to the Libertarian Alliance meeting to the Samizdata.
It isn’t all arm-twisting. This is not just an important issue, unarguably one of the ‘hottest’ of all topics, it is one that has potentially global implications and I do think it fitting to examine it in depth.
This is not merely a recantation of the events that are plastered bloodily across our TV screens and newspapers every day for every bomb that explodes and every bullet that flies makes headline news and anyone reading this post is already likely to be conversant with the actual events.
This is more a strategic assessment and overview.
The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians (or more accurately, this round of the conflict) can be traced back to the Oslo Accords of the mid 90’s and the subsequent rounds of complex negotiations, culminating at Camp David in July 2000 when the Ehud Barak offer of Palestinian sovereignty over 95% of the West Bank, was rejected. Very shortly afterwards the Second (or Al-Aqsa) Intifada began.
Despite the welter of accusation and counter-accusation flying back and forth at the time, the real reason for the breakdown was the Israeli refusal to countenance the Palestinian demand for ‘Right of Return’ i.e. a right for all and any Palestinians to return and reside in Israel proper. It is a proposal that the Israelis cannot, under any circumstances, accept and one that the Palestinians will not, in any circumstances, withdraw.
→ Continue reading: Israel .vs. Palestine (Part I)
In my last two postings about war on Iraq, I tried to set out the moral grounds for using military force against another country, as well as distinguish between civilians and combatants. The blogosphere had already been teaming with opinions, moral or otherwise, about the war on terror, Iraq, the US military power and its proper use. when Steven Den Beste posited the conflict as more than a mere ‘war on terrorism’ but rather clash of cultures and civilisations in his article last week.
The majority of reactions were, predictably, based on the respondents’ previously established positions. Some agreed because they agree with Den Beste and his ‘Hollywood-style patriotic wanks’ that make them feel good about themselves and the country they live in 1. Some disagreed for the sake of disagreeing; some may have even had genuine grounds for dissent although I am yet to see a counter-argument that would rise to the challenge. We at Samizdata have taken, ehm, a rational approach, and judged his ideas on their merit. We found that we could not disagree with the fundamental points of the treatise and were ready to admit it openly. Long live our unbiased and rational intellects!
Most of the analysis of the Arab World certainly made sense to me despite the occasional twinge of disagreement. It still did not add up to opposition in principle and I have continued to seriously think about Den Beste’s ‘Modest Proposal’ to subdue and transform Arab Traditionalism, to find out why I agree or why, if at all, I disagree with him. Re-reading the piece point by point did not yield conclusive result. I decided to re-examine my own fundamental reasons (both moral and practical) for supporting the war on Iraq.
This means that I will not fisk Den Beste’s proposal for his opponents’ benefit, nor will I please those who wish the world to agree with their ‘champion’. It is perhaps aimed at those who may share his conclusions but not the journey to it. → Continue reading: War and Peace
Part III of III
The long awaited third part on Iraq and war is different from what I originally intended. Strategic and military aspects remain important but the debate has moved on in a direction where evidence of Iraqi threat on its own does not convince. Strange since it provides the most obvious reason for war on Iraq – self-defence.
Both the US and the UK have maintained that Iraq has breached the provisions of the UN sanctioned ceasefire agreement from the Gulf War and continues to pose a military threat to the region. Prime Minister Tony Blair’s dossier on Iraq says President Saddam Hussein has the military planning to launch a weapon of mass destruction at 45 minutes’ notice.
There are other documents that deal with Iraq’s military capabilities and certainly convince me that self-defence is essential. A CSIS document Iraq’s Military Capabilities: Fighting A Wounded, But Dangerous, Poisonous Snake concludes:
It is both easy and dangerous to be an armchair field marshall. Anyone can assert how easily Saddam’s regime will collapse in the face of the slightest opposition, or produce worst case scenarios that argue against any form of attack. The reality is, however, that no one can firmly predict Iraq’s military capabilities and the uncertainties and intangibles are as important as the numbers. It is also important to remember that one key risk – Iraq’s unceasing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction – will grow steadily worse with each year in which the UN cannot conduct effective inspections and take effective action. There are risks in not acting as well as acting.
Perhaps the best way to assess Iraq’s military capabilities, therefore, is to understand that a war might lead to extensive fighting, large civilian casualties, and significant US and allied casualties. It might involve weapons of mass destruction, and it might be far more costly than other recent wars.
This is not an argument for paralysis, but rather to avoid thinking of war as some safe and antiseptic process where other people’s sons and daughters take the risks. It is an argument against facile half-measures like arming a weak and ineffective opposition, and taking the risk that the Bay of Pigs may be followed by the Bay of Kurdistan. It is an argument against trying to do the job with limited amounts of air power or with air power alone, and without coalition allies and access to friendly bases in Turkey and the Gulf. It is an argument against trying to avoid the deployment of “decisive force” and several sustainable heavy US divisions. It is an argument against going to war without announcing clear redlines to prevent Iraq from using weapons of mass destruction, and without preparing a devastating US conventional response if it does. One does not play with poisonous snakes – wounded or not. One either kills them as safely and efficiently as possible or leaves them alone
Good stuff. Another one is IISS Strategic Dossier titled Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Net Assessment, more recent and poignant:
In conclusion, war, sanctions and inspections have reversed and retarded, but not eliminated Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and long range missile capacities, nor have they removed Baghdad’s enduring interest in developing these capacities. The retention of WMD capacities by Iraq is self-evidently the core objective of the regime, for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy goals to this singular aim. It has retained this single objective, and pursued it in breach of the ceasefire and UN Security Council Resolutions that brought a conditional end to the 1991 Gulf War. Over more than eleven years the Iraqi regime has sought to evade its obligations and undermine support for the sanctions and inspections regime meant to eliminate its WMD capacities and contain its ambitions. Iraq has fought a relatively successful diplomatic war of attrition. It is worth recalling that the international debate 18 months ago was centred on how sanctions against Iraq might be relaxed, and inspections concluded with some dispatch in light of the dwindling willingness to support the containment policy developed in 1991.
Today, after four years without inspections, there can be no certainty about the extent of Iraq’s current capacities. A reasonable net assessment is that Iraq has no nuclear weapons but could build one quickly if it acquired sufficient fissile material. It has extensive biological weapons capabilities and a smaller chemical weapons stockpile. It has a small force of ballistic missiles with a range of 650km, that are capable of delivering CBW warheads, and has prepared other delivery methods for CBW, including manned aircraft and UAVs. Sooner or later, it seems likely that the current Iraqi regime will eventually achieve its objectives.
In compiling this Strategic Dossier, the IISS has sought to put the best available facts on this difficult issue before the wider public. This Strategic Dossier does not attempt to make a case, either way, as to whether Saddam Hussein’s WMD arsenal is a casus belli per se. Wait and the threat will grow; strike and the threat may be used. Clearly, governments have a pressing duty to develop early a strategy to deal comprehensively with this unique international problem.
Hear, hear.
Update: Just noticed Perry’s post below – not only he got there first with Tony’s dossier but also makes a similar point. Oh, well, great minds think alike. 
Here is the UK government’s dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. As it is rather extensive I have yet to wade through the whole thing. Read it and see what you think.
The threat posed to international peace and security, when WMD are in the hands of a brutal and aggressive regime like Saddam’s, is real. Unless we face up to the threat, not only do we risk undermining the authority of the UN, whose resolutions he defies, but more importantly and in the longer term, we place at risk the lives and prosperity of our own people.
Well the UN has no authority, moral or practical, so that point means exactly nothing. On the last point, that is putting it mildly!
I rather suspect it will not change too many people’s minds regarding the justification of military action against Saddam Hussain’s regime as I have observed that the facts of the matter have only a limited bearing on the positions people take.
Nicholas Chatfort is exasperated by Israel’s latest appallingly timed stunt regarding Arafat
It has often been said of the Palestinians that they never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. It appears that the Israelis have picked up this same bad habit. According to a report in Ha’aretz, the Isreali Defence Force’s (IDF) recent assault on Arafat’s compound in Ramallah prevented the convening of a special meeting of the Fatah Central Committee scheduled for Saturday to pressure Arafat to accept the appointment of a prime minister. Arafat has been resisting the appointment of a prime minister as this would diminish his own power, possibly leading to turning him into a figurehead leader.
While the Israeli desire to retaliate for the recent suicide bombings is understandable, the heavy-handed action may unfortunately have the opposite effect to that which the Israelis apparently intended. Instead of weakening Arafat, it is likely that the demolition of Arafat’s compound will now abort, or at least seriously delay, moves by the Palestinians to pull power away from Arafat as they once again rally around him.
Although Ha’aretz reports that Palestinian requests for committee members to travel to Ramallah for the meeting were known to senior Israeli political and military officials, Israeli cabinet ministers who approved the IDF operation claim that they had not been told of the meeting. If this is true, it appears that senior Israeli officials were negligent in their duty to provide the cabinet with all of the information that they needed to make their decisions.
Nicholas Chatfort
Insights come in varied and peculiar forms, such as those decanted from the lips of such British sages as Rab C. Nesbit to the north and the Macc Lads from a tad further south.
To be honest I think the Macc Lads are at least as reliable as DEBKA when it comes to military analysis and probably rather better… well certainly more forthright. Read the article and make up your own mind.
If there is war, it will be a clash of experts as well as armies. If Saddam’s forces collapse, and the American-led action has a quick outcome, the Macc Lads will have disproved Field marshal Lord Bramall and most of academe.
Before you read the linked Spectator article, let me proffer some linguistic assistance to our non-British readers… ‘Boddingtons’ is an inexpensive but far from ineffective beer in considerable favour with the broader end of Britain’s socioeconomic pyramid.
I finally found the right Microsoft compatible audio codec for Linux and have watched the video of Netanyahu’s press conference which I discussed yesterday.
I must admit I am impressed. I’d never before got the measure of the man. If your opinions of him, like mine, were formed by watching the BBC or other evening news, I highly recommend you take the time to listen. He is a very strong defender of Freedom of Speech.
I think he should get his own blog. He’d fit in nicely with the rest of us.
I was about to just add a comment, but I found myself with things to say that are better said up here on the front page.
Brian indicated my attitudes correctly. I certainly don’t wish things to go down the hell road… but they could. Many seem not to take into account the intensity of feelings amongst American citizens and the ways in which Americans as a people tend to react.
The first WTC bombing, the occasional blown up airliner, even the attack on the USS Cole were just the events of another Evening News. The USA is a huge country. Events of that size are unusual but not enought to impact the average person on a gut level.
The events of 9/11 were quite another matter. It got everyone’s attention. Everyone has friends, relatives, coworkers in New York City. The USA is a very mobile culture. Large parts of the population have worked or studied there at one time or another in their lives. The reaction, if you knew America and Americans was rather predictable: “We’ll find the bastards responsible and make them pay.” I know my business partner could vouch one of the first coherent things out of my mouth after the “OH MY GOD. ALL THOSE PEOPLE!!!” was about what we were going to do to bin Laden/Afghanistan and/or Saddam/Iraq. Others may not have been as familiar with the “intel” as I, but the gut reaction was repeated from one side of the planet to the other, wherever an American stood watching the live events.
The results after a little over one year is bin Laden/Afghanistan are down. He’s most likely roasting over a slow spit in some special deep hellpit along with his pilot friends and Saddam will be joining him shortly. It has been all very controlled and measured. Very careful to not cause too much harm to anyone’s sensibilities in Europe or elsewhere. Very controlled, very directed and undeflectable fury.
It should be quite noticeable the fury hasn’t cooled down very much in 12 months. Why? Because this is not a television media event, as much as media would like to move on to the Next Big Story. It’s real, and people do know the difference.
If someone were to be so foolish as to set off any “Weapon of Mass Destruction” (the weapons formerly known as NBC) the results will be different. If a nuke were to go off in San Franciso, or LA, or Detroit or where ever… the reaction would be extreme. Perhaps the government could restrain the populace and perhaps not. It would certainly risk not being re-elected if it didn’t do something very harsh. And if it happened more than once or if the death toll was in the millions as predicted for a worst-case Smallpox attack on an uninoculated populace… the reaction would be that of a berserker.
It would not be too extreme to say the results of such attack would be the use of methods similar to those of early Islam. Instead of “Convert or Die!” at sword point, it might well be the choice of “Change or die!” for the whole Arab world, guilty or not. And change they would. You don’t argue when 300 million heavily armed crazies are out for blood vengeance.
The lesson that must be drilled into any potential attacker out there is: the more of us you kill, the crazier and more violent we’ll get. If an attack passes some threshold of destruction on the continental USA the results will be exceedingly bad for children and other living things in the Middle East.
Look at pictures of Tokyo in 1945. That is the result of something done on American soil of similar scale (but not to civilians) to the WTC. You really don’t want to scale that up by a factor of a thousand. You really, really don’t.
Last night I came upon Steven Den Beste’s piece about the USA conquering and rearranging the Middle East, in the manner of the USA’s conquest and re-arrangement of Japan after WW2.
Like Perry I liked Den Beste’s description of the nature of the contest, but I recoiled somewhat from his proposed solution. I also found Eric Raymond’s supportive reaction to it very thought-provoking.
I wasn’t the only one who was provoked. Commenter Logi Ragnarsson (5.12 pm Thur 19) said, in among saying ruder things: “Why do you want to start a massive assymmetric war in the world I have to live in?” Others with similarly Iceland-like names piled in with similar points. As Dave Roberts commented a bit later (6.14 pm):
Well, you’ve really stirred up everyone with a ‘sson in their name.
There followed an intriguing digression into the question of how much, if at all, my British ancestors imposed civilisation upon the Indian ancestors of N. Srinivasan (7.58 pm). → Continue reading: Let them hate provided that they hear
I am not a huge fan of Steven Den Beste’s blog USS Clueless, as I dislike the style and content on so many levels. I frankly regard his understanding of history, geopolitics and in particular anything beyond the shore of his home country as generally underpinned by misleading stereotypes and ‘Hollywoodized’ history. In particular I dislike his frequent risible saccharine paeans to the transcendent superiority of an imagined United States of America in which in one would scarcely believe Waco, Ruby Ridge, civil forfeiture and Ted Kennedy would even be conceivable, let alone a reality. Such ‘feelgood’ writing is undoubtedly very good for the hit rate but then the Mirror, Sun and Daily Mail will always outsell the Times, Telegraph and Guardian for much the same reason. In short, I regard USS Clueless as a prime example of American neo-conservative thought at its most blinkered and parochial.
And so it is somewhat of a surprise to me to find myself in fairly robust broad agreement with Steven’s article about the fact the war against Iraq is in reality a manifestation of a cultural war. To me that is such a self evident truth that I am astonished that so many people find Den Beste’s essay so controversial.
Now as a libertarian, I am highly critical of the way western nation states are structured. In fact I would say that Continental European and, to a slightly lesser extent, Anglosphere civil society has a deep rooted sickness brought on by a century of creeping statism. And yes, that includes the United States. The degree to which freedoms taken for granted by our grandparents are regulated and circumscribed grows almost daily. As I have often written, the state is not your friend.
Of course the views I have just expressed would not come as any surprise to anyone who has read Samizdata.net for more than a few days: so far, so ‘typically libertarian’.
However the idea that as the state (meaning for me, the British state, and for many of our readers, the American state (USA or Canada)) and the aspects of civil culture which support it, is something to be resisted and undermined until the state has been cut down to size and the culture put back in touch with the classical liberal roots from which it sprang, does not mean that I think therefore ‘western’ culture is not better than the alternatives. I am constantly threatened by the state which makes me its subject and constantly robbed by it under threat of violence. Yet it is not the British or American states which threatens to set off nuclear weapons in London or spread smallpox through the public transport system in New York.
We are indeed threatened by the Islamic culture that is expressed by Wahhabism and Den Beste is entirely correct that we need to understand that what happened on September 11th was just a very visible expression of the kulturkampf that has already been going on for a long time. I strongly suspect it is because Islam is so clearly losing this ‘war’ that Al Qaeda was motivated to do the things it did. For much the same reason that this ‘war’ is so evidently real, I find myself grudgingly supportive of Israel on the basis that the enemy of my enemy is (sometimes) my friend, and also that Zionism is an entirely parochial -ism that will pose no threat to me either now or at any time in the future.
So is Den Beste correct that the entire ‘Islamosphere’ needs to be destabilized as part of this kulturkampf? Yes, but that does not need to be done entirely by force of arms, not even primarily so. We do indeed have to make sure that the short/medium term threat of our literal destruction that springs from the ‘Islamosphere’ is dealt with forcefully by the equally literal destruction of Ba’athist Socialism and eventually (let us not kid ourselves) radical Wahhabism. Once that is done, there is no need to turn the Islamic world into an American province, even if that was possible… in the long run the comfortable banalities and sheer material success of the Western secular capitalist way will destroy the cultural underpinnings of the threat that became impossible to ignore on September 11th 2001.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
