As Promised
True to my word, here is a takedown of a piece of Libertarian nonsense. (My responses are in italics.)
Bush’s plan to launch invasion of Iraq is totally unjustified, Libertarians say
WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush’s unfolding plan to invade Iraq is totally unjustified, Libertarians say, because that nation poses no direct threat to the United States.
Welcome to the wacky and fun filled world of libertarian foreign policy! Where the sentiment is “Sorry you live in a land of oppression, but while we proclaim ourselves defenders of liberty and freedom, we aren’t gonna lift a finger to help you out. None of our business and whatnot. “
“Before the president risks the life of even one American soldier, he needs a reason, not an excuse,” said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party executive director. “Unless the United States is at risk of an Iraqi military attack, Bush’s proposal to invade that nation should be denounced for what it is: reckless foreign interventionism.”
Reason, not an Excuse #1: Read this interview with Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza
Reason, not an Excuse #2: Read Richard Perle’s article
Reason, not an Excuse #3: Read Michael Kelly’s article
Yet a full-blown war against Iraq appears inevitable, according to administration sources, after reports on Wednesday that all of Bush’s top national security advisors agree on the need to topple the Iraqi dictator. The most likely scenario involves using 200,000 U.S. ground, air, and naval troops to invade Iraq as early as the winter of 2003.
Sounds about right.
But one crucial fact has been ignored in the debate, Libertarians say: Saddam has not committed an act of aggression against the United States.
It’s called “pre-emption,” you Rothard-worshipping fellows. Saddam isn’t sinking billions of dollars into developing nuclear bombs to frighten Bedouins. Wouldn’t it be prudent to end Saddam now while has still yet to completely create weapons of mass destruction rather than wait to attack after he has used them to cause the deaths of Americans? What’s that? He won’t use them because if he does he knows his regime would be extinguished by the US military? Perhaps he found a way to deliver harm the US without knowing it was him that built the weapon. Ladies and gentlemen, meet al-Qaeda. He could build a bomb and dispatch bin Laden’s henchmen to actually place and detonate the device.
“Wars that are not defensive are merely acts of aggression against sovereign nations,” Dasbach said. “And wars that are launched by presidents, rather than formally declared by Congress as the Constitution requires, are illegal.”
Thomas Jefferson, while he was President, didn’t ask Congress to formally declare war on the Barbary States, but he still sent US forces to teach them the folly of pirating our shipping vessels.
Moreover, while the U.S. government has made vague claims that the Iraqi regime has terrorist links, it has produced no public evidence specifically linking Saddam to the September 11 attacks, Dasbach pointed out.
I refer you back to Reasons, not Excuses #2 and #3
“Since Bush has no legitimate reason for waging war on Iraq, he has cobbled together a list of accusations, none of which provide sufficient justification for invading a sovereign nation and risking American lives,” he said. For example, Bush claims that:
* Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. “True enough, but there are dozens of ruthless dictators around the globe, starting with Fidel Castro; the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; the Chinese communists; and various tyrants sprinkled throughout Africa, Asia, and Latin America,” Dasbach said. “Is Bush going to send troops to topple them all?”
If we do succeed in overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq and replace his thugocracy with a constitutional democratic republic, it would show that Arabs can manage something besides corrupt despotism. Such a outcome would definitely encourage actual advocates of liberty (as y’all purport to be) in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Yemen, Iran, etc. to topple their on suppressive governments?
According to Freedom House, an organization that tracks the status of democracy around the world, only 120 of the world’s 192 nations are electoral democracies, Dasbach noted. “So unless Mr. Bush plans to launch strikes on the 72 other captive nations, he owes the American people an explanation as to why they should fear Iraq more than other despotic regimes,” Dasbach said.
Zimbabwe is ruled by the racist Robert “Kill the White Devil” Mugabe who is heck-bent on starving all of his people so that he and his cronies can live in luxury. But, I don’t think he has his hands on some ICBM’s. The same goes with a lot of sub-Saharan countries: ruled by evil socialist-leaning dictators, but with militaries only fit to oppress their people.
* Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. “According to the Pentagon, 12 countries have nuclear weapons programs, 13 have biological weapons, 16 have chemical weapons and 28 have ballistic missiles,” Dasbach said. “So what makes Saddam’s chemical weapons more menacing than, say, Pakistan’s nuclear bomb?
Here, Libertarian stupidity comes shining through. Pakistan hasn’t used its nuclear bombs ever, yet Saddam has gassed his own citizens. Has Pervez Musharaf invested hundreds of millions of dollars in developing biochemical weapons? And the last time I checked, Pakistan has been a fairly decent ally of ours since Musharaf took the reins.
* Saddam supports terrorism. “According to the State Department’s official list of terrorist sponsors, 45 nations have active al Qaeda cells,” Dasbach said. “So even if terrorists are operating inside Iraq, that in itself makes Iraq no more of a threat to the United States than Malaysia, Somalia, or the Philippines.”
The Philippines and Malaysia are democratic regimes with at least a modicum of respect for the rule of law. While I confess ignorance of Malaysia’s efforts, I do know that the Philippines has worked with the US in hunting down those radical Islamic terrorist cells. Al-Qaeda has no love for the Philippine government and native Islamists actively seek its downfall, so it’s in Manilia’s interest to crack a few of their skulls . In Somalia, there is no national government, no chemical weapons labs, and no military infrastructure to aid, arm and equip terrorists. It’s a good spot to hide without any local authorities snooping around. Besides, who said that we don’t have plans concerning Somalia?
The bottom line is that Bush’s wide-ranging indictment against Saddam Hussein is missing one key element: proof that Iraq poses a direct threat to the United States, Dasbach said.
There is proof, y’all just refuse to see it.
“Instead of struggling to find a justification for war, Mr. Bush should be looking for a way to avoid war – and avoid the needless loss of American lives that could result.”
“A pre-emptive strike against Hitler at the time of Munich would have meant an immediate war, as opposed to the one that came later. Later was much worse.”
--Richard Perle.
Oh I forgot, Perle is a blood-thirsty, war-mongering, cold-hearted neo-con. Never mind.
