In this instance, you can judge a book by its cover. The back of the dust jacket displays endorsements by two of our foremost warmongers. Both John McCain and Joseph Lieberman praise Kagan as an insightful analyst of foreign policy. At one point, urging that we promote democracy in the Middle East — the Iraq disaster is evidently not enough for him — he asks, essentially, what else are we to do? Kagan has put his considerable intelligence in the service of those who would busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8208/the-longing-for-war-forever/
The Longing for War, Forever
Previous post: The Fed’s Moral Hazard
Next post: The Best Use for Your $600 Government Check
{ 28 comments }
Interesting review. Does Kagan say anything new? Judging from the review I would say not.
The neo-con problem is arrogance, not that of a haughty attitude, although they have some of that, but the arrogance that Hayek defines as assuming you know more than you do. Maybe hubris is a better word. The Vietnam War and the mess in Iraq should have cured neo-cons, but they never seem to learn. They think someone has to dominate everyone else or the world will fall apart. Humility would suggest that Americans don’t know what is best for everyone else and to leave them alone. Neo-cons need to learn how to be good neighbors in the world. A good neighbor leaves others alone to solve their own problems and only offers help when asked.
The idea of not going to war except for self-defense is a good one, but I have a few worries about it. In an age of nuclear weapons, the first person to strike has an enormous advantage. Who strikes first could potentially decide the outcome of the war, unlike pre-nuclear wars in which the country attacked could stall the enemy long enough to develop defenses. That brings up the concept of preventive strikes. What if you have pretty good intelligence that a nation plans to attack? Should you ignore that until it actually strikes? Of course, the US hasn’t faced that situation since 1941 so it’s not exactly relevant to any situation today.
On Iran, I oppose a US strike of any kind. I think the chances of Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapons is less than 50%, but smarter people than me think otherwise, including Bernard Lewis, the dean of Middle Eastern studies. But all of that is mute. Israel is convinced that Iran will strike and has stated that it will not allow Iran to build the bomb under any circumstances. Israeli intelligence expects Iran to have a bomb in 2009, so Israeli’s are prepared to strike before then. They are resigned to going it alone because they believe the West has become resigned to a nuclear Iran. The only division on the subject in Israel is when to strike. Hawks want to strike before Bush leaves office; Doves want to wait until the last minute, which would be some time in 2009. Iran and the entire Arab world have declared that they will view any Israeli strike as an American strike because they consider Israel an American colony. As a result, we will be at war with Iran within the next year. (You can get a lot of this info at the Middle East Media Research Institute and the Iran va Jahan web sites.)
fortunately this dire prediction has not yet come true, though it may well just be an error of timing on your part. i don’t buy the impartiality of your expert, either. i believe he brings his own biases to the question:
http://is.gd/jwXZh
I read a little more of the document and would like to make the following comment on the question of nonintervention: I would prefer isolationism because of the fact that interference in the workings of other countries, that do not or should not concern us has created an atmosphere of global hositility towards this country.
No country will be willing to attack the United States without provocation and our policy of isolationism should achieve that. But this situation comes with a caveat — we should be mindful of which country we befriend, since isolationism will prevent us from becoming back-thumping buddies with any nation that proclaims itself to be our friend when the friendship is not based on mutual gain. To take this concept a step further, Isolationism will also prevent us from appointing “friends” to represent our interests in the global arena, since we will pratically have “renounced the world” while turning our sight inward.
Isolationism requires that friendship come at a premium.
If capitalism were to be the only viable economic system then liberal democracy cannot be an acceptable political regime.
The following is a contradiction: “All nations would accordingly become liberal capitalist democracies”. ‘Liberal’ represents Socialism, ‘Capitalistic’ subsumes Liberty at the individual level or Rule of the Minority and ‘democracy’ represents Rule of the majority.
For true capitalism to arrive in this country we need to accept this country for what it is — a Republic, in which the Rights of the Individual are sacrosanct. Attempts at practicing Capitalism in any and all of its other forms and linking it to democracy in its many shades has resulted in Restricted Freedoms, Controls, Big Government, Social Security, Medicare and other disasters.
I fail to see the moral justification for non-interventionism. Isn’t it like a man, who carries a handgun, but when he sees that an an unarmed man is attacked on the street my an armed criminal, just shrugs and walks away?
Non-interventionism is not isolationist, but merely non-military intervention. A non-interventionist country would still engage in economic trade with other nations, and in so doing, would still be “exporting” the values of free, voluntary trade, or in other words, would be illustrating the Non-Aggression principle in a big way. It doesn’t mean we can’t engage in defensive and even appropriate retaliatory measures if need be, but such measures should be less likely to be needed.
I don’t understand how any libertarian can advocate continued political and military meddling in other countries as the U.S. has done and still does. However, if there are hawks out there that think something more aggressive needs to be done, let them raise their own resources for doing it, instead of the U.S. government doing it with tax money (or worse, higher debt).
Miklos,
So you’re being selfless if you use other people’s money and other people’s sons and daughters to help?
Actually, all the countries going to war face the alternative of self-destruction.
Miklos Hollender, good point.
I don’t know how the situation is like in the US, but the Romanian army, for example, is a professional army. They are paid for participanting in international missions. They are mercenaries. No one forces them to go nowhere. Maybe this would be a good alternative for helping other countries get rid of their dictators.
Beneficii, Michael,
no, it’s not selfless that way. The way I see it is that I think in a propertarian anarchy, a lot of people would volunteer to help other nations againt oppression. Case in point: the International Legion in the Spanish Civil War – except that I think they didn’t really understand what’s going on (the Republican side was quite Stalinist). But anyway, it did happen. I think in a propertarian anarchy many people would volunteer to protect Taiwan against China for example.
Doing so is very moral, in fact it’s such a basic moral duty that I cannot imagine a sane society where not many people would do so.
Because the state maintains a monopoly of violence, as long as the state exists, it is it who must help. You or I are not allowed to buy tanks.
My argument is basically the following. Because the state does not have a monopoly of charity, it’s not the state, but private people on their own free will who should help if there is famine in the world, and the state should not. But because a state has a monopoly of armed force, I expect the police to be effective, to protect me. And similarly, helping other people against aggression or tyranny, as long as it’s only the state that has access to the advanced weaponry, must be the duty of the state – simply because the people don’t have access to it.
How can anyone who values freedom stand idle if other peoples are oppressed or aggressed against?
And if I am prohibited by the state from buying tanks and helping them directly, and if I am forced to pay ten thousand £ a year in taxes, why shouldn’t I insist that as long as these things are the way they are, the state should do this job for me? If I shouldn’t then does that mean I cannot insist that that £10K I pay in taxes to be spent on an efficient police? Should I just kiss good-bye to it? Should I demand that money to be used for something I think is very moral and important?
As for lives – that’s a good argument against conscription. But not against voluntary armies. What do those people think, who volunteer to serve in the army? No one ever told them that they will only be employed in purely defensive wars.
I’m quite emotional about it, because I am from Hungary and I’m a bit pissed that the West didn’t help in 1956 against the Communist aggression – even though I know that wasn’t feasible because it could easily evolve into WWIII. Still I think that in Jalta, we alongside the Polish, Romanianst etc. were sold all too easily to Stalin to do as he pleases. So I don’t want the same thing to happen to the Taiwanese, Kurds etc.
Let me put an emphasis on it: there is no moral or other difference between hiring security guards to protect the home of your aunt, or sending a volunteer army to liberate other people from tyranny. Of course, there is a difference between financing it with private money or extorted money, but I plain simply want the money extorted from me to be used to protect Kurds or Taiwanese rather than to use it for other means. I’d prefer not to be extorted at all and to be allowed to buy 1/500th of a tank for Kurdistan, but I’m realistic.
Miklos, I have no problem with people using their own resources to hire mercenary armies (or other forces) to engage in battles to help oppressed people in other countries. But a nation’s military should be used only for the defense of its country and citizens–that’s its only legitimate function, even if it’s quite clearcut that other people are being oppressed. That’s the other part of the equation, of course. Making sure the situation is clearly understood and that one acts appropriately to it.
Either way, allowing government to act outside of its legitimate functions makes it harder to restrict it from doing other stuff that you don’t want it to do.
In the highly unlikely event that we end up at war with Iran, I would suggest that it will be nothing like the Iraq mess, but will resemble the complete domination of all inhabitants (civilian and military).
The United States and its western allies will not tolerate and can not afford to go to war with every individual radical islamic fundamentalist in the middle east. Therefore, the only solution will be to take off the “international cop hat” and put on the solider hat once again. Once that happens, there is no chance in a 1000 that even the entire middle-east combined can win. Americans and the British do two things exceptionally well; better than any other nation in history; war and business.
It is a sad twist of fate that much of the world’s raw energy is located in an area of the world where tribal revenge rules supreme over business and logic. This hurts all industrialized nations of the world. And it wouldn’t suprise me one bit if a war with Iran broke out, that China and Russia actually play an undergound role in securing western victory. In the end they both know that you can deal with America and its allies because they listen to business and reason.
Furthermore, I do not believe that the majority of the Arab world will act in partnership with Iran. It’s really quite simple and to use english slang “they don’t want non’a this”. If it wasn’t for the United States, the Saudi royal family would of fell long ago at the hands of its own people. Moreover, the first nation they ran to when Iraq threatened the region was of course the United States. They know who keeps them alive. They are not stupid.
Miklos:
The problem with your argument is exemplified by your statement ..
“I’m quite emotional about it, because I am from Hungary and I’m a bit pissed that the West didn’t help in 1956 against the Communist aggression”
Remove your emotion and resolve to analyze the facts of the US intervention policy. There are very few that have had any positive impact.
What external struggles does the US choose to engage its military? Venzuela, Taiwan, Iran, N Korea, Haiti, Burma, Bangladesh, Any country in Africa?
The US has does a remarkably poor job of designing plans with a focus on dimplomacy and economic policy to promote Liberty in oppressed countries. The military powers that run this country fail over to dropping bombs and shooting guns at the first opportunity. Ask the people of Iraq how “free” they feel. How about Afganies?
Why should my child pay for it?
It is not of a higher moral ground to free children of another nation when our children will suffer with the burden of the economic realities of war. If Taiwan wants our help, let them bid for our services against any other country that would like us to assist them.
Why should the US people pay for a sovereign Taiwan? I see no change in our way of life whether Taiwan is part of China or not. Furthermore, the Taiwanese are no more oppressed than the Chinese. Why don’t we “save” them?
In order to attain a sustainable level of peace and prosperity we must stop considering military intervention as a primary option in resolving diplomatic issues.
Can you get your head around what would happen if the US and China went to war? Is it really worth it? I believe it is not.
Miklos:
“Isn’t it like a man, who carries a handgun, but when he sees that an an unarmed man is attacked on the street my an armed criminal, just shrugs and walks away?”.
If we had shrugged and walked away from Saddam Hussein, we would not see our kids dying for a worthless cause. This precisely why I am advocating Isolationism. Other peoples problems are not our problems. We have enough of our own. Let’s look inwards.As long as America is the Giver, there will always be Takers.
If allowed to do so, China and India would contest for control of the Indian Ocean, Japan and China might contest for control of the waters between them, and in the event of war the crucial trade routes would be closed not only to these nations but to the entire world… If this hasn’t happened in recent decades, it is not because the nations of the world have learned, evolved, and adopted new norms of international behavior. It is because the American navy dominates the oceans.
This is a HUGE fallacy–the fallacy that a strong military brings economic benefits. There are NO economic benefits from militarism. More accurately, any economic benefits from war are severely outweighed by the economic costs–higher taxes, a shrinking dollar, higher oil prices, etc. I would far rather have the cavemen setting the oil fields alight then burn trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars to secure them.
This has become one of the great schisms in the international system dividing the democratic world and the autocracies. For three centuries, international law, with its strictures against interference in the internal affairs of nations, has tended to protect autocracies. Now the democratic world is in the process of removing that protection, while the autocrats rush to defend the principle of sovereign inviolability.
Wars for freedom bring only death, not freedom. Wars, when lengthened, have a corrupting effect even upon the most noble men. As violence escalates, the notion that the end justifies the means tends to predominate. Conscription, civilian deaths, surveillance tactics, torture, and post-traumatic stress results from war. Sadistic sentiments become fashionable during times of war, and those who condemn it are eventually outcast as unpatriotic or treacherous.
http://mises.org/books/bookofpeace.pdf
If allowed to do so, China and India would contest for control of the Indian Ocean, Japan and China might contest for control of the waters between them, and in the event of war the crucial trade routes would be closed not only to these nations but to the entire world… If this hasn’t happened in recent decades, it is not because the nations of the world have learned, evolved, and adopted new norms of international behavior. It is because the American navy dominates the oceans.
This is a HUGE fallacy–the fallacy that a strong military brings economic benefits. There are NO economic benefits from militarism. More accurately, any economic benefits from war are severely outweighed by the economic costs–higher taxes, a shrinking dollar, higher oil prices, etc. I would far rather have the cavemen setting the oil fields alight then burn trillions upon trillions upon trillions of dollars to secure them.
This has become one of the great schisms in the international system dividing the democratic world and the autocracies. For three centuries, international law, with its strictures against interference in the internal affairs of nations, has tended to protect autocracies. Now the democratic world is in the process of removing that protection, while the autocrats rush to defend the principle of sovereign inviolability.
Wars for freedom bring only death, not freedom. Wars, when lengthened, have a corrupting effect even upon the most noble men. As violence escalates, the notion that the end justifies the means tends to predominate. Conscription, civilian deaths, surveillance tactics, torture, and post-traumatic stress results from war. Sadistic sentiments become fashionable during times of war, and those who condemn it are eventually outcast as unpatriotic or treacherous.
http://mises.org/books/bookofpeace.pdf
In response to EnEm:
There is a difference between isolationism and non interventionism. Isolationism means completely cutting oneself off from the rest of the world, not allowing trade or tourism. Non interventionism simply means not intervening or interfering in the business of other nations, yet being a good neighbor and openly trading with all and allowing tourism. Ron Paul was falsely labeled an isolationist, but since the good doctor has always stated his belief in free trade and good neighborliness with all, the lies against him fell flat.
In the modern sense of the terms, “Liberal” may mean “socialist” and “conservative” may mean “capitalist” and “pro-liberty”, but in the original sense “conservative” meant to conserve (or restrict) liberty, and “liberal” meant to be “for liberty.”
Unfortunately, statist politicians are addicted to power, like heroin addicts–the more power they receive, the more power they crave, and the more power they crave, the more power they’ll demand–until society ends up lying down facing up while Big Brother continually stomps the jackboot in his face forever (as depicted in the book, 1984).
David Gordon’s otherwise excellent article would have benefitted by deleting the comment about no party representing Taiwanese independence having gained control of the government of Taiwan. Taiwan’s DPP did exactly that and Chen Shui-bian’s government was at loggerheads with China throughout his administration. Fortunately, the recent elections on Taiwan rejected that party and the current government is far less likely to cause trouble vis-a-vis China.
I’m grateful to Mike Carron for his comment, but Chen Shui-bian modified the DPP program when he was president. He promised not to declare independence so long as mainland China didn’t use force against Taiwan.
Former conservative wrote “There are NO economic benefits from militarism”. This is true of our era, but it is not true in general. For instance, the Norman Conquest, the Spanish Reconquista and its continuation in the Americas, and the early phase of Islam and of the Ottoman Empire were all militaristic and gave good returns to practitioners.
Dear David Gordon,
What is the criteria that you use to select a book to review? I propose that you consider reviewing MORE THAN LAISSEZ-FAIRE (2008) where you will find none of the propaganda (how else can I describe it) of the demagogues.
I believe that you, and those who pay attention to your reviews, will be intrigued by the freshness of the economic science and the certitude it conveys about the virtues of free market economics.
To former conservative:
May you think “a strong military brings no economic benefits”. But countries like China doesn’t, and not only about economics.
In China, to re-unite the country is something like promise the CCP gov. gave to the people, and the key region is just Taiwan. CCP gov. has threatened Taiwan many times, althrough they said prefer the peace way.
Once the internal crisis goes out of control, the autocracy would transfer it abroad to keep his status of “a patriot-government”。
WHY did Saddam Hussein decide to invade Kuwait?
Why did Hitler decide to invade Europe?
Once China get back Taiwan, you Americans would lost a big customer of your military weapons.
I am Chinese, and I love America, the world needs peace, only America can bring it. In the epoch of globalization, you American benefit most greatly, so you have the responsibility to bring peace,democracy,freedom and human rights to the rest of the world. And the isolationist would do no help。
“Ask not what the world can do for you，ask what you can do for the worldâ€
“Ask not what the world can do for you，ask what you can do for the worldâ€
sounds like south park’s “team america: world police”.
to bruce koerber:
nothing against salesmanship, but you should mention that you are the author of said book.
Dear Newson,
I apologize if that was offensive to you. A book review would make authorship evident and, regardless, the criteria – “freshness of the economic science and the certitude it conveys about the virtues of free market economics” – seems to merit a review but maybe there are other, more significant criteria.
I think Mr. Hollender has the most moral arguement when it comes to military “interventionism”. The man or country that speaks of freedom and the rule of law but figures that someone else will always do the dirty work to get there in my mind is a hypocrite. The inaction of nations and politicians that knew better and did nothing are in part responsible for the deaths of the victims of Stalin, Hitler,Mao, Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein and the freak shows that were in charge of the Rwandan genocide.
The lives of those people lost should be a harsh prompt against the failures and inactions of the past.
Those statistics represent real people. Doctors, Philosophers,Economists,Athletes, Musicians and children who will never fulfill the promise of their lives. Does non-interventionism presume we live in a moral vaccum? If all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing then aren’t we abdicating evil by inaction?
In a world where ideas now cross borders with every immigration into a new place shouldn’t we be focusing on expanding the ideas of liberty, the free market and the preservation of the democratic republic instead of pretending Communism/totalitarianism doesn’t exist anymore?
The former head of the KGB is the President of Russia. Nuff said. China is a communist country. Its a central tenet of communism to use the wealth of the capitalist to facilitate its own destruction. What is China doing with its money: Building up its military. Hmm…
Pretending the emperor isn’t naked doesn’t make his nudity go away.
to bruce koerber:
no offence taken. i hope they review your book, too.
Comments on this entry are closed.