Don't Blame Libertarians for Bipartisan Failures in Iraq and Afghanistan
Have you heard the news? American foreign policy is in tatters BECAUSE LIBERTARIANS!
Seriously, GOP blowhards are attacking folks such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) for his foreign policy failures (Paul is slow to invade and occupy countries). Funny thing is, the Republican Party's preferred strategy of stupid goals topped off by terrible execution isn't working so well. And don't expect any help from a Democratic Party and a president that hasn't met a country they don't want to invade or drone.
In my latest Daily Beast column, I suggest some basic tenets of a libertarian foreign policy. Snippet:
All large-scale and long-term military engagements should actually be put to a specific congressional vote as dictated both by the Constitution and by common sense. The use of military force should be governed not by a set of infinitely expandable terms such as ensuring human rights and expanding democracy, but far narrower and less grandiose ideals of national defense.
As Rand Paul wrote recently in a response to criticisms from Rick Perry and other Republicans, "Anytime someone advocates sending our sons and daughters to war, questions about precise objectives, effective methods and an exit strategy must be thoughtfully answered."
Most importantly, foreign policy should not be reduced to a synonym for military action and covert operations. The most powerful weapon the United States has for expanding peace and enlarging prosperity has nothing to do with guns and bullets and everything to do with the way in which we have created a nation of 300 million-plus people who generally get along peacefully while pursuing radically different visions of the good life.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Senator Paul is a Republican.
He may be part of an ever-shrinking non-interventionist caucus of the GOP, and he may have some other libertarian positions, but he's still a Republican.
Just ask him about marriage equality, ending (rather than easing up on) the war on drugs, or eliminating foreign military aid for all countries, not just some.
The non-interventionist caucus of the GOP is actually growing, Rand Paul has done more to end the war on drugs than any Democrat in Congress or the White House, and he has publicly stated that he wants to gradually eliminate all foreign aid. But other than that you are completely accurate, he's just a mean old racist Republican. Hack.
Just ask him about marriage equality state licensing of gay marriage and forced association with gays . . . .
Kinda changes the flavor, doesn't it?
So now the disastrous decision to invade and nation-build in Iraq is half Obama's fault?
I'm sorry David Weigel, I'm afraid I can't do that.
http://reason.com/people/david-weigel/all
You Peanuts humor me.
SHUT DOWN DISSENT! GO TEAM RED!!!
So fuck you.
Dave Weigel's not here, man.
http://reason.com/people/david-weigel/all
Who's this Weigel guy? Was he fired from Reason?
DW was a writer here who did not show proper fealty to the GOP.
Hello, David Weigel.
http://reason.com/people/david-weigel/all
Nobody here complains about Nick or Matt. Are you saying that they do show fealty to the GOP?
Red Tony complains about them. But you are correct, "nobody" does. I think they go out of their way to be fair (see above).
Hello, David Weigel.
http://reason.com/people/david-weigel/all
Weigel's sin was participating in a secret partisan Democrat propaganda campaign. He was a Journolister.
His firing was 100% appropriate. Not because he was anti-Republican. Because he was engaged in a stealth campaign of character assassination and partisan propaganda.
Because he was engaged in a stealth campaign of character assassination and partisan propaganda
Something he continues to stand by, like a good progtard soldier.
Where did Nick say it was?
"Bipartisan". There is not a single Democrat who voted for a $1.5 trillion nation building folly in Iraq. That was the Bush Doctrine, not the Bipartisan Doctrine.
The perfect template to knock off a murderous thug is Obama in Libya. Cheap, no US troops, and use the local revolutionaries for the ground game and execution.
And only four US citizens dead! (that we know of)
I'M SORRY, I RESPONDED TO IT. IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
today...
Hello, David Weigel.
http://reason.com/people/david-weigel/all
Bipartisan != equal share of blame
Furthermore, the title says "Don't Blame Libertarians for Bipartisan Failures in Iraq and Afghanistan"
Furthermore, here is the vote for the AUMF Iraq:
82 (40%) of 209 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution
Look more closely for a good laugh.
The list also includes the guy PB voted for in 2004 for President (you know, the one who served in Vietnam), and the gal he's going to pull the lever for in 2016 (the one who avoided sniper fire in Bosnia).
There is not a single Democrat who voted for a $1.5 trillion nation building folly in Iraq.
Funny, I see 40% of Dem Reps voted for it and 58% of Dem Senators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Bullshit. AUMF =/= nation building.
So link us to the Congressional votes on nation-building, Plugs. You know, the ones where Dems voted as a unified bloc.
Seeing as the Reps haven't a had filibuster-proof majority in the Senate since, well, long before the Iraq war, I'm going to say you can't. Because a unified Dem bloc of more than 40 Senators could have stopped nation-building.
Not to mention, the AUMF, and the 1998 Iraq resolution under Clinton, both called for nation-building.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
When you can't even find a Salon article to support your bullshit, you resort to just making shit up. But hey, as long as it supports Obama, you still get that magical tingly feeling down your leg, right?
Hey Weigel - did you see where I outed you yesterday?
Damn those Libertarians for always getting us to intervene in other countries' affairs! DAMN them!
Wow. FlashHarry is unfamiliar with AUMF and the Afghan surge.
American foreign policy is in tatters BECAUSE LIBERTARIANS!
*Twirls moustache, puffs out chest*
Don't forget to polish your monocle and kick an orphan.
Kick an orphan?! How crude. I pay a guy to do that.
You pay your help?
Parvenu.
American foreign policy is in tatters BECAUSE LIBERTARIANS!
*Twirls moustache, puffs out chest*
I can't even blame the skwerlz.
I can't even blame the skwerlz.
The liberaltarian alliance is on hiatus until January of '17. Until then, we are racist warmongering elitist hillbilly tools of the 1%.
I'm gonna say the liberaltarian alliance will re-emerge summer or early fall of 2016.
We're only useful to the progs when we vote for their candidates. They'll be batting their eyes and twirling their hair at us during the next Presidential election, maybe even this mid-term election.
For those of you playing at home, PBPlug (aka Weigel) is scarce on the threads where he is outed.
We get along because we gots lots of stuff here. Take away much of the stuff, and we would be massacring each other.