1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/7031/a-policy-of-unrelenting-force/

A Policy of Unrelenting Force

August 24, 2007 by

George Bush, famous for outlandish claims that have no bearing on reality, has outdone himself by claiming that the problem with Vietnam was that the U.S. withdrew its troops rather than fighting harder and longer.

In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, he didn’t say how long the U.S. should have stayed, but he did claim that the reason for the bloodshed in Cambodia, and the prison camps in Vietnam following withdrawal, was not the war itself, but the failure to continue the war without end.

Presumably, then, if Bush were president for life back then, we would still be in Vietnam, the draft would still be in place, and the bloodshed would have continued for decades.

My, what a vision! You might think this is madness. In fact, it is the reductio ad absurdum of a particular worldview that he and his friends have adopted. FULL ARTICLE

{ 47 comments }

Brad August 24, 2007 at 8:59 am

The lesson learned about modern warfare is that it has been routinely used by bureaucrats to attain their own ends. If there ever was a concept of fighting for liberty, and against tyranny, and people voluntarily associating to do just that, “live free or die” or “give me liberty or give me death”, then it has gone out of style. People may wonder if War is ever necessary, and I’d much rather do without it, but if it ever were truly necessary to preserve my existence and freedom from clear and present danger, then I’d rather it be efficient, effective, and get right to the brutality of killing people and destroying property – then hope to return, alive, to a life of peace and prosperity. When War is a public relations gambit with a little extra muscle, it becomes merely another “program”. And Programs are merely quasi-religious blather which exists to give bureaucrats their raison d’etre.

But bureaucrats don’t want it to be efficient and effective. They want to wage War, but not have blood on their hands, just like when the execute any of their policies, someone has to lose and they want to distance themselves from those repurcussions. So they fight the War at half speed. And they try and curry support from the masses who aren’t exactly sure what the fight is about, “Saddam is a Big Meanie”, “Saddam has WMD”, “Iraq was part of 9/11″. And so since it is somewhat manufactured the actual fighting and killing better not be too brutal, because if the polls turn against you, then you’re in a much bigger hole. So gain enough luke warm support from a population who can’t discern a clear and present danger, and you send a token force of what could be gathered to run slowly through a meat grinder and hope to “win the hearts and minds” of someone, anyone. “Winning hearts and minds” = Public Relations with Muscle.

Darren August 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm

“Presumably, then, if Bush were president for life back then, we would still be in Vietnam, the draft would still be in place, and the bloodshed would have continued for decades.”

I had exactly the same thought when I heard the clips from his speech! Unbelievable that he can even still peddle this nonsense.

In addition to the practical fact that force only begets more force, another aspect of the war supporters’ line of reasoning is the moral dimension of whether we should be there. The increasingly popular refrain is, “Well, no, we shouldn’t have gone to war, but now that we’re there, we have to stay and finish the job.” Huh? Let’s apply that at the individual level. If you arrive at someone’s home with a loaded rifle pointed at them intending to kill them, and suddenly you realize you’re wrong, do you ‘stay and finish the job’? No, you cease and desist immediately. Why would it be any different with regard to occupation of a country?

James Ward August 24, 2007 at 3:25 pm

I appreciate Lew Rockwell’s intelligent and critical analysis of the pro-war orientation of Bush and his advisers. Our president seems to have war as his default setting, and in doing this harms the long-run interests of the US. War is no substitute for intelligent foreign policy. Let me borrow Rockwell’s final image and say that for too many members of our highest level of leadership, a vision of the world as a prison camp run by the US seems all too plausible.

I’m a professor of political science, and I plan to have my students read this column as an example of critical analysis, well-done.

Tim Kelly August 24, 2007 at 4:07 pm

The lesson from Vietnam should be that the Congress and American people should not allow a president to drag the country into an unnecessary foreign war on false pretenses. Why did the United States endeavor to prop up the French empire in Indochina after the Second World War? The Fourth Republic was spending roughly the same amount it was receiving in aid from the United States to maintain its vainglorious empire in Southeast Asia.
Another lesson from the Vietnam War should be when the U.S. government decides to leave a country alone, it has a good chance of becoming normal. Vietnam is now only nominally communist and has become a major trading partner with the West. We should do the same in the Middle East.

Matt August 24, 2007 at 5:16 pm

No surprise here from our President. Are US citizens not subject to a form of aggression via the IRS.?..Pay-up or go to jail! backed by Force!

Is not our money debased via deficit spending backed by Congress, much sweat of the taxpayer is taken by Force! has Slavery really been repealed?

These injustices are here at home, why do we wonder that they are also practiced by our Government overseas. Thomas Jefferson, George Washington where are you?

Paul Kent Graeve August 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm

If Mr. Rockwell cares to tune into the reality of Iraq and the necessity for the continued use of force to WIN the war, he might consider reading the following:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118757414472302520.html

Mr. Rockwell’s article is so ‘over the top’ and wildly absurd that I was hoping it was a parody. Unfortunately, I fear Mr. Rockwell is lost far beyond the ‘deep end’ and it pains me that he is in a leadership role of a such a fine organization like the Mises Institute.

The war on terror is distinct from any war the US has ever fought, and as such, the war on terror might require more resolve than the US demonstrated during WWII. I for one thank God that we have a leader like George W. Bush who possesses such resolve, and I pray our next president may have equal resolve to continue the offensive against the Islamic radicals whose only mission in life is to kill every American, even pathetically weak Americans like Mr. Rockwell.

Anthony August 24, 2007 at 7:03 pm

I wouldn’t consider Mr Rockwell weak – I consider him to be a symbol of strength and moral courage. His opposition to State-instituted mass murder and theft (i.e. the “war against terrorism that the US itself caused”) is well placed.

No world police. August 24, 2007 at 10:51 pm

PKG:
How can you be proud of Bush? He is only risking his job. One hundred and fifty thousand American are risking their very lives. 3500 already paid the ultimate price. I find it interesting that none of the people in the Bush cabinet have sent their children to the Iraq quagmire. Of course neither did LBJ or Nixon.

RWW August 25, 2007 at 2:31 am

The war on terror is distinct from any war the US has ever fought…

Care to explain?

One hundred and fifty thousand American are risking their very lives.

That’s what they signed up for.

Tim Kelly August 25, 2007 at 8:18 am

The pretext for the Iraq War was Saddam Hussein’s regime posed a threat to the security of the United States because it had stockpiled chemical and biological weapons and had the will and the means to use them againts the United States. In addition, the Bush Administration claimed Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and was actively seeking materials abroad in support of it.

It is now known that these claims by the Bush administration were false and the evidence to support them were cooked up by the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. Basically, this war is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it is, like so many others in U.S. history, based on lies and misinformation. Vice President Cheney knowingly misrepresented intelligence reports that had been conveniently leaked to the New York Times. The intelligence Cheney cited dated back to the mid 1990s and actually contradicted the claims that Iraq had an active WMD program. Indeed, the program had been scrapped soon after the Gulf War in 1991. This is prima facie evidence that the vice president and other administration officials engaged in deception and misinformation to sell the war to the Congress and the American people.

The attempt to conflate the Iraq War with 9/11 is a cyncial ploy to exploit the American people’s fears and ignorance. This is curious because even the president has stated that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Nevertheless, apologists for Bush’s policies often cite 9/11 as justification for the Iraq War. Unfortunately, history demonstrates that such ploys often succeed in creating war fever. Norman Solomon, the author of ‘War Made Easy’ recently wrote ”the problem with letting history judge the actions of our leaders is that in the meantime they get away with too much.”

Police sign up to be police, soldiers to defend the Constitution. August 25, 2007 at 12:57 pm

I bet there are at least to several ex-officers who had forgotten to sign their resignation paperwork and in your words “Signed up for Iraq.” would not claim the same. I properly filled out my resignation paperwork and had my letter from the military “Volunteering me for duty in Iraq.”, my words, revoked.

So I doubt that ALL or even most people fighting the un-winnable quagmire in Iraq actually signed up for it. I feel sorry for these men and women to have to fight against an enemy while handcuffed by crazy rules of engagement who isn’t now and never was a threat to the Constitution in the first place.

Continuing on the threat to the Constitution angle. ONLY ONE politician in Washington, Ron Paul OF COURSE, gets it. These people did not start as our enemies. The US and its allies have mucked around in this area for so long that these people have started to build an entire quazi-religious movement around hating us.

IMHO August 25, 2007 at 1:23 pm

PKG:

Unfortunately, I fear Mr. Rockwell is lost far beyond the ‘deep end’ and it pains me that he is in a leadership role of a such a fine organization like the Mises Institute.

The Institute is indeed a fine organization; but you appear to be under the misguided notion that Ludwig Von Mises would be supporting this war.

You should acquaint yourself with the history of the Middle East.

Paul Kent Graeve August 25, 2007 at 2:17 pm

How is the view from the cheap seats gentlemen?

One can only thank God that men like yourselves waste your time analyzing your own anals and criticizing brave world leaders from the comfort of your cozy think tanks and university classrooms. You have so much in common with the terrorists with whom we are at war, both of you are totally blind to all reality and reasonableness because of your extreme hatred, theirs for Christianity and America, yours for George W. Bush and Republicans. Both of you cannot be bothered with facts, because they get in the way of your unadulterated hatred.

Once again, thank God for real men, who take action against tyranny (Saddam) and hatred (Islamic Radicals) instead of attempting to appease such men whose evil and hatred knows no reason or bounds. I am sure you would have tried to appease Hitler as well. The world has seen time and time again how appeasement works with such men. Thank God George W. Bush knows his history, and knows that nothing, nothing, other than the death of those who seek to destroy America, and our way of life will stop these tyrants and radicals.

Previous leaders like Truman and Eisenhower, current leaders like Bush and Blair, and of course our brave troops selfless sacrifice provide the very world of democracy and freedom of speech that allows you to sit back in comfort of your cheap seats and criticize their actions. So go on, criticize away, until you weaken our country to the point that the terrorists win, and instill radical Islamic law into our land. Be careful though, they hardly believe in freedom of speech, so once this happens you will have to get a real job, your current job will get you beheaded quickly.

Mike August 25, 2007 at 2:50 pm

lol, i get it, pkg is writing satire. well done. “instill islamic law into our land” almost made me spit coke on my keyboard.

Vanmind August 25, 2007 at 3:04 pm

It appears that the Straussians are starting to sweat.

Anthony August 25, 2007 at 3:09 pm

PKG, neocon mentality is not fundamentally much different from that of so-called terrorists (who of course were provoked my the US’ aggressive foreign policy… but don’t let the facts get in the way.)

BTW, ask God how He feels about mass murder!

lester August 25, 2007 at 4:02 pm

what would Bush know about Vietnam?

Laptop August 25, 2007 at 4:23 pm

Mr. Rockwell’s article is so ‘over the top’ and wildly absurd that I was hoping it was a parody. Unfortunately, I fear Mr. Rockwell is lost far beyond the ‘deep end’ and it pains me that he is in a leadership role of a such a fine organization like the Mises Institute.

Christopher Hettinger August 25, 2007 at 4:32 pm

I laugh at the notion posted in an earlier comment that democracy is making the world a brighter place.

Mr. Robert Farrar August 25, 2007 at 10:37 pm

I was disapointed to read Mr. Rockwell’s words: they could have come straight from the neo-Marxist Noam Chomsky, don’t take my word for it, a professor is going to have his students read it-how Left can you get?

While, to any logical person Capitalism just happens, history tells us that this is not the case. Ideological driven nations (and professors) will strive to eradicate such ideals. Freedom has to be won, in our time it is the US that has to lead the way.

Although declassified Soviet documents tend to support President Bush’s argument, that Vietnam was winable, it was not until the Reagan Administration that US confidence was restored.Unfortunaately the latest struggle is against Islam, if freedom and Capitalism are to survive then the US is the West’s last and best hope. The struggle is real and it will not matter who is President.

RWW August 25, 2007 at 11:26 pm

So I doubt that ALL or even most people fighting the un-winnable quagmire in Iraq actually signed up for it.

I couldn’t put it in more eloquent words than Thoreau, who said, “They are the standing army… In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.”

The state is an instrument of theft and murder, and I feel no pity when those who mindlessly volunteer to do its bidding are placed in harm’s way.

The US and its allies have mucked around in this area for so long that these people have started to build an entire quazi-religious movement around hating us.

Yet you vehemently defend those who sign up to continue mucking around.

RWW August 25, 2007 at 11:31 pm

I was disapointed to read Mr. Rockwell’s words: they could have come straight from the neo-Marxist Noam Chomsky…

Even an utterly broken clock is right twice a day.

While, to any logical person Capitalism just happens, history tells us that this is not the case… Freedom has to be won, in our time it is the US that has to lead the way.

You insult the very concept of freedom by associating it with new government of Iraq. Take a look at their new constitution some time.

IMHO August 26, 2007 at 7:18 am

PKG:

One can only thank God that men like yourselves waste your time analyzing your own anals and criticizing brave world leaders from the comfort of your cozy think tanks and university classrooms.

I am sure you would have tried to appease Hitler as well.

All I did was suggest that you take the time to educate yourself concerning the history of the Middle East. In return, you hurl insults that demonstrate a true fear of knowledge, and then wrap the flag around it. You hope that by tossing out the Hitler card, I’ll appease you with my silence.

No such luck.

Paul Kent Graeve August 26, 2007 at 12:37 pm

IMHO – please, since you like to conveniently dismiss my comments in their entirety by claiming I am so ‘uneducated’ about the Middle East, I’ll be happy to elevate myself to your level of superior intellectual capacity. Kindly, educate me, or point me to the reading that you believe my intellectual repertoire is lacking. I’ll gladly do my homework and respond. THANKS!

Christopher Hettinger – I am curious, since Democracy is not ‘making the world a brighter place’, what form of government would you support? Socialism, communism, radical Islamic law perhaps?

iamso910 August 26, 2007 at 1:23 pm

PKG wrote:
“I am curious, since Democracy is not ‘making the world a brighter place’, what form of government would you support?”

Well, most of us around here would prefer a constitutional republic than a democracy.

That would be something like the founders intended, with a limited centralized government. Quite opposite to the neconservative agenda.

iamso910 August 26, 2007 at 1:42 pm

@ PKG
re: Intellectual Repertoire

You could try the articles here by Micahel Scheuer, a 22 year veteran of the CIA who specialized in terrorism.

http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/

His book “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror” is also highly recommended.

You can find audio interviews with him here:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/03/22/michael-scheuer/
here:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/19/former-head-of-cias-osama-unit-backs-up-rep-ron-paul/
and here:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/05/10/michael-scheuer-2/

Other authors at that site also have vast knowledge of Middle East goings on.

Note that these guys have accurately predicted much of what has transpired, something that the neoconservatives certainly cannot claim.

Mike August 26, 2007 at 1:47 pm

PKG – Since you seem like a good, Constitution toting Republican why don’t you tell us what form of government is specified in that document (Hint: not a Democracy).

Mike August 26, 2007 at 1:55 pm

iamso910

sorry, didn’t see your earlier post.

you are incorrect though that the neocons haven’t been able to accurately predict what would happen in an Iraq invasion. Dick Cheney has been spot on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

Christopher Hettinger August 26, 2007 at 2:59 pm

Paul Kent Graeve wrote:
“I am curious, since Democracy is not ‘making the world a brighter place’, what form of government would you support? Socialism, communism, radical Islamic law perhaps?”

I can only speak for myself here, but I believe that there is no preferable form of governance since all rely on the same notion of force. Wilhelm Ropke (Roepke), the economist who inspired the post-war Deustch, or German, “economic miracle” once famously remarked after seeing all of his liberal reforms systematically done to waste something I paraphrase to the tune of, “Ours is an unending fight, freedom must be fought for anew each day.” It is true enough. Certainly, the state is our foe. I, personally, shall never be satisfied with any concessions the crowned heads shall make. They too fight perpetually, though instead their struggle is for ever more power and influence. May I also say that they seek prestige and nobility to mask their programs? The ends, being peace and prosperity, we fight only through just and liberal means, never by the sword unless in defense (even then, violence is used with greatest hesitation). Though you may disagree with Mr. Rockwell and others for attacking Bush, do not doubt that they do so with good reason. You can justify the situation as not being “that bad”, but I will ever say, it will never be good enough.

Reb August 26, 2007 at 3:43 pm

First of all,I support free,unbridled speech,particularly political speech,I do however believe one should at least have a basic understanding of reality before they open their mouth and convince us that they know very little.

#1 America is NOT a democracy,thank God! The founders were very much against this tyrrany of the masses,a system where the one is crushed by the many,5000 folks may argue with three that the earth is flat and decide to kill the three but guess what, the 5000 are WRONG,same with many things.

#2 America is a REPUBLIC ruled by laws,namely the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,if we were actually operating by these laws they would not be doing most of what is going on today,I fully support blasting anyone who attacks me or my country,but I am not convinced,we are on the right track with a so called “War on terror” you can’t fight a method, you fight an enemy.

My concern is not so much about the war,although it is certainly an issue that must be addressed,my concern is what I see happening to that rule of law I mentioned earlier,you can’t fight an enemy of liberty by cutting off our liberty,we must become free-er not more police state like,we must seal up our nations borders and monitor who is coming,not silence the people when they disagree with the govt,thats how a fascist acts not a son of the republic.

The federal govt is so far out of control it will take a miracle to pull it back into the control, of America,and allow America to shine through again,time to get rid of the cheap imposter known as the fed and return to the republic, to America to the dream that is still there but hidden under a heavy layer of govicorp that would like to make sure that people never again taste what America stands for,my oath is to defend the Constitution against ALL enemies foreign or DOMESTIC,not to defend democracy,or the president or the system,but the Constitution,nuff said!

Democracy August 26, 2007 at 5:12 pm

Knock off the slander, or I’ll convince fifty-percent-plus-one of the people to murder everyone you’ve ever known.

iamso910 August 26, 2007 at 10:10 pm

Mike wrote:
iamso910

sorry, didn’t see your earlier post.

you are incorrect though that the neocons haven’t been able to accurately predict what would happen in an Iraq invasion. Dick Cheney has been spot on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
————-
haha, just shows that lot is smarter than we give them credit for, and as dishonest, as we have long suspected.

TLWP Sam August 26, 2007 at 10:21 pm

. . . not a democracy, rather a constitutional republic . . .

Gee, can anyone say hoi polloi?

Christopher Hettinger August 26, 2007 at 11:16 pm

Haha, the word Republic can mean so many things.

Daniel M. Ryan August 27, 2007 at 3:06 am

Indeed. Its original meaning was res publica, or the “body politic.” A fitting place for the hoi polloi, so it was averred back in the days when “hoi polloi” meant “below the scholar’s radar; not worth bothering with.”

Scott D August 27, 2007 at 12:29 pm

PKG:

“You have so much in common with the terrorists with whom we are at war, both of you are totally blind to all reality and reasonableness because of your extreme hatred, theirs for Christianity and America, yours for George W. Bush and Republicans. Both of you cannot be bothered with facts, because they get in the way of your unadulterated hatred.”

From your commentary, it seems that you believe us to be “leftists”. You’ll find that such distinctions hold little relevance here. Both “left” and “right” are rife with contradictions buttered with a creamy smooth layer of empty rhetoric. Both depend upon force and fraud to remain in power, therefore, both are equally illegitimate. Bush simply pushes the horrible destructive machine of the state ever onward, and for that, he deserves our disapproval.

Truth is not divided into “left” and “right”. It does not conform to an ideology. It is not the truth because God, or your church’s pastor, or the president of the United States has proclaimed it. The truth is.

I once believed as you do, that this once-great country was fighting a noble battle against would-be oppressors. There came a point when I realized that this vision could not be true. I soon found the truth, hidden beneath the patriotic exhorting of the warhawks and the directionless grumbling of the anti-war left.

The truth is that no force or violence is justified except when used in self-defense. Many so-called libertarians believe that Iraq can be justified on the grounds that the nation posed a threat to us or were already engaged in an attack through terrorism. The evidence of any threat was shaky before and has now been shown to be completely false. The war was launched on a lie, and no amount of patriotism or appeals to “fight for freedom” will ever change that. Freedom is meaningless unless it is applied universally.

It is with vain hope that I implore you to search for the truth, as I did. Look at what Bush has done. Weigh his actions carefully against their proported justifications and judge them objectively. I will not lie to you. You are probably happier living in ignorance, at least for the present, but should you find truth, you will be that much less a human being and that much more a tool of and slave to the state.

Above all else, be prepared for the unthinkable to occur in the next year-and-a-half. Please look up “Executive Order 12919″ and tell me that I’m being paranoid to imagine that the sweeping powers granted therein will remain beyond the reach of our president for much longer.

Scott D August 27, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Errata:

“but should you find truth,”

should have been

“but unless you find the truth,”

Paul Kent Graeve August 27, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Scott D – I appreciate your comments, and I’ll try to find time to look up the Executive Order and to respond to your comments as well. Work just has me slammed right now, and I already have several “reading assignments” from Mr. iamso910. This is the first time I have ever ‘Blogged’ and I didn’t think it would be so time consuming… how do people keep track of numerous blogs and get any work done?

IMHO August 28, 2007 at 1:48 am

Hey PKG:

I think we got off on the wrong foot. Look, I come from a place where people speak very directly and I guess it comes through when I post.

When you criticized Lew Rockwell, I felt bad because he and Jeffrey Tucker and who knows how many other people work their butts off keeping this website and the Institute in Auburn going. This is one of the most comprehensive websites dedicated to learning that I’ve ever seen. You should explore it and see for yourself.

In addition, there’s LewRockwell.com. As if that wasn’t enough, Lew holds seminars around the country as well.

So, you may not like his point of view, but at least give him credit for dedicating so much of his time so that we can benefit from the teachings of people such as LVM, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Bastiat, Hoppe, and the rest of the crew. Not to mention what we can learn from each other.

It looks like you’ve got a couple of good guys who are willing to help you out, so consider yourself lucky. Listen and learn and you will find blogging can be a rewarding experience.

Good luck!

Charlie Zulu August 30, 2007 at 10:57 am

Rockwell seems to be on a different planet from the Earth, or at least Earth as I know it. The communists butchered millions in south east asia after america and its allies pulled out. Vietnam is now only “normal” because the communist experiment failed under the weight of its own butchery and incompetence (again). The “failing” war in vietnam was mainly in the minds of the press. For example, NVA documents attest to the so-called success of the tet offensive and the horrific impact it had on the north vietnamese army as evidenced by an epedemic desertion rate after the offensive. Only their propaganda machine and the “free” western press saw it as an NVA victory.

Vietnam was fought (as the current iraq war is being fought) as a police action and not a war and, therefore, failed against a determined idealogical enemy with the full might of the western press behind it. Swap Iraq for Germany. Can you imagine armed nazi strongholds being allowed in germany after the end of WWII? Armed militias of brownshirts prowling berlin? The opinions of nazi militia leaders being taken into account regarding security policies? Minimum force against SS werewolves? In war the maximum force rule wins with the least casualties.

In vietnam the american people bottled it in the face of casualities that wern’t even the equivalent of a few days on the Somme. The innocents of south east asia then paid the price, not because america got behind pol pot but because the communists slaughtered them while the western press and intellectual elite pretended that it wasn’t happening. As Kipling said “just because your own front door is shut you think the whole world’s warm”.

Freedom isn’t bought in a few bloodless days. If you don’t like the idea that it costs and that it often takes years, then go and live in iran or the soviet union at its height. There you can learn the price of short term surrender. usually more (30 million in soviet russia alone) die in the long term and often you never get out from under it. And if you don’t fight it at its source then eventually it comes after you at home. As the French, Belgians, Soviets etc learned in WWII, don’t wait until the enemy is in your homeland before fighting them unless you want to see your homeland devastated.

If the US pulls out of iraq and afgahnistan then mass butchery will follow. More importantly Bin Laden will be proven right in that “America is a paper tiger” and the jihadis will “surge” globally. Then sit back and wait for the storm. It’ll get to the US and Europe eventually. Some would already argue that it has.

As for Bush etc not having sons in the military, well neither do the judges, university academics, “free” press, liberals etc. Yes it stinks but it doesn’t mean the war is wrong. It just means that american (and western) culture stinks because the people are dumb enough to accept leaders in all walks of life who accept the benefits of living in a free society but don’t have the bottle to defend it as soldiers or as statesmen. But then, when push comes to shove, neither do most of the electorate. The Romans made military active (war) service a prerequisite for political office. The idea deserves some consideration – but not just for political office.

Mike August 30, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Charlie, honest question. Would you support giving Bush temporary dictator powers to go after terrorists for say 5 years? No congress getting in the way or anything, just straight up martial law.

Anthony August 30, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Here’s an even better idea: conscript everyone in the country, and force them to serve in war before becoming citizens. That’ll boost freedom alright! As we know, slavery = freedom.

Geoffrey Plauche August 30, 2007 at 4:27 pm

I’m not sure what “having the bottle” means, but it seems to me that Charlie Zulu is setting up a false dichotomy between having an imperialist warfare state on the one hand and being enslaved pacifists on the other. He overlooks the third, libertarian, alternative, which I believe Rockwell adheres to, and that is being against the imperialist warfare state while simultaneously being in favor of defending individual rights, with violence if need be. The two positions are not incompatible. In fact, they are intimately related.

Robert Farrar August 30, 2007 at 11:25 pm

RWW,
Sir, I did not mention Iraq, you did.

Charlie Zulu August 31, 2007 at 3:22 am

Mike – honest answer no. not him or anyone else. Nor would i ever see it as necessary or appropriate.

As for imperialism or enslaved pacifism. I’m not advocating either. If you want to live in a certain way then sooner or later you will have to fight to be allowed to. American revolution (revolt? tongue in cheek) springs to mind. Fighting against those who attack you isn’t imperialism. The war in iraq is constitutional and legal. If people don’t like it tough. You can’t be part of a system and opt out when you feel like it. Or rather you can’t be part of a system and opt out from the bits you don’t like whenever you feel like it while still grabbing the benefits with both hands. Nor am i advocating conscription, merely making the obvious point that there is no longer any relationship between those who make the decisions and any personal risk on their part – especially the political and so-called cultural elite. The fourth estate springs to mind. It has now become solely a means for the left-liberal view point to be peddled regardless of the facts. the facts are now made to fit the desired view point. Vietnam was a prime example of this.

A disturbing theme in some of the comments i have read is the failure to understand my point above. To say that those who serve their country are mindless and deserving of what they get is truly disturbing. My own view is that those who sit on their backsides enjoying the fruits of others toil because they like it and who then won’t countenance risking themselves or removing themselves from that system, they deserve all that they get. unfortunately, the rest of us don’t deserve what people that like often impose on us.

Liberty isn’t about doing everything you want when you want to. It is also about a grown up appreciation that with your rights come responsibilities. Any mature adult knows that in life you have to take the rough with the smooth. and if you don’t want to then you can legally work to change the system, but in the mean time must abide by its current rules. The “hell no I won’t go” leftwing from the vietnam era represent a truly childish and immature trend within the west. Yet the same people would scream blue murder if I refused to pay my taxes to support their failed social programmes. They would happily imprison me, confiscate my property etc. They can be free while the rest of us can be free if we agree with them. Now that is slavery.

Anthony August 31, 2007 at 7:02 am

Charlie, I do not know what kind of site you think this is, but I don’t anyone here will be spilling tears over cancelled social programmes. Now, many contend that the USA brought this war, as well as many others, on itself, via its imperialist meddling in others’ afairs; so how could these wars be said to be truly defensive? Governments, to the extent that they have any worth, are the agents of their citizenry – not the rulers. I do not see how wasting billions on war in Iraq does anything to promote liberty.

Brett Celinski August 31, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Neocons still post on blogs these days?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: