I'm breaking a rule I made for myself about not getting into any more email debates, so I'll be brief.
Every antiwar activist I have ever met, both libertarian and leftist, is opposed to both the war AND the sanctions/embargo. For years, leftist publications like The Nation have been reporting the horrors caused by the sanctions/embargo, and libertarian publications discuss the social benefits of free trade.
In the article you forwarded, the author seems to assume that there are only two ways to get rid of a tyrant: siege by an outside power or invasion by an outside power. He needs to read more history, which has many examples of subjects either overthrowing their rulers or reducing the power of their rulers. Outsiders have sometimes helped them, but a siege weakens internal resistance and gives the tyrant an excuse for his failures, and an invasion stirs up nationalist resistance to the invaders, especially when the inevitable civilian casualties mount. Lafayette's help was welcome in the American Revolution, but a blockade or an invasion by French forces to "liberate" the American colonists from King George's forces would not have been welcome.
For more-recent history, consider the falls of Suharto in Indonesia, Marcos in the Philippines, and the totalitarian governments in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as the gradual improvement of the government in China.
I surely hope you're correct, Kelly, that tyrants can be removed by their
victims because I believe that we here in the US are rapidly reaching the
point that a tyrannical government must be recognized as such and dealt with
accordingly. The foreign war distraction just blurs the proper focus.
In the article you forwarded, the author seems to assume that there are
only two ways to get rid of a tyrant: siege by an outside power or
invasion by an outside power. He needs to read more history, which has
many examples of subjects either overthrowing their rulers or reducing
the power of their rulers. Outsiders have sometimes helped them, but a
siege weakens internal resistance and gives the tyrant an excuse for his
failures, and an invasion stirs up nationalist resistance to the
invaders, especially when the inevitable civilian casualties mount.
Amen. Virginia Postrel of Reason magazine made the same error in
a recent "economics focus" column in either the NYT or WSJ, comparing
the costs of invasion and containment, as if those were the only
options.
For more-recent history, consider the falls of Suharto in Indonesia,
Marcos in the Philippines, and the totalitarian governments in the
former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, as well as the gradual
improvement of the government in China.
"Libertarians" who support big government in opposition to even
worse governments seriously underestimate the libertating power of
free markets, surrendering vital territory to the proponents of
government.
I'm not sure what you mean, but I think we are a long way from the need for armed resistance in this country. We can still send emails like these without fear of imprisonment, and we still have relatively free speech. The current King George has gained power by a combination of public support and public apathy. We can use our free speech to try to persuade the majority not to give him power. It won't be easy, and it may take a long time, but the system allows for it.
Well, I've kept out of it on this list for a while, but I think I'll just
voice a little opinion here. What's done is done. If we stop now, Saddam
will only be stronger... kind of like a disease that survives antibiotics.
There is no pulling out. We're in this now for our own self defense,
because backing away from this fight will mean certain death and destruction
here at home. And even if we do face death and destruction here at home
after successfully killing Saddam, at least he's dead and his propoganda
machine will be turned off.
I'm sick and tired of him toying with us. We try to take the higher ground,
try to take him at his word, try to prevent civilian casualties, and all of
our attempts to be the 'good guys' are used against us. But since he makes
no attempt at all to prevent unneccesary deaths, to honor his aggreements,
or be at all a 'good guy', he is immune to criticism. Instead he is the
leader of an 'oppressed' people (who is doing the oppressing???) who is
somehow justified in murdering these very same people he supposedly leads!
No one seems to question if he's sending a busload of women and children
into a checkpoint knowing full well they will be fired upon if they don't
stop, JUST SO HE CAN GET THE SYMPATHY POINTS! I'm not suggesting
conspiracy, but the question never seems to get raised. We just get the
fingers pointed at us as killers of Iraqi civilians. We haven't even come
close to the number he's killed during 'peace', nor will we ever because we
don't like killing. Saddam on the other hand loves killing, watching live
or video-taped killing, and making people kill who wouldn't otherwise want
to kill with the threat of killing their families!
Bottom line is, the world will be a better place without Saddam in it! Fuck
Saddam.
I'm all for Saddam Hussein being ousted, and your points about his
utter lack of morality are well taken. Many peace advocates are too ready
to take the Baathists' brutality for granted when they would never give
such a pass to a Western government. I also appreciate the distinction you
draw between the Iraqi regime and the civilian population of Iraq.
It's unfortunate that Al Qaeda's September 11 killers lacked the
sophistication to draw a similar distinction between the U.S. government
(guilty of covering up horrible atrocities at Waco, Oklahoma City, etc.)
and American civilians.
But if Al Qaeda's operatives are listening to all the Americans
using nationalist terms like "we," "us" and "our" troops when referring to
the actions of the U.S. government's military forces overseas, they must be
feeling a lot better about their decision to treat ordinary Americans as
partisan combatants.
Personally I am through with nationalism. One country's leadership
deserves our condemnation more than the other, but neither deserves our
support. Saddam Hussein could be butchering classrooms full of children
with his bare hands and eating their entrails for lunch daily and it still
wouldn't make me call the Bush (or any other non-libertarian U.S.
administration) "my" government or make me identify its actions as my own,
no matter how regrettably necessary I might deem some of those actions to
be.
If there were as much sentiment among libertarians and the left
against sanctions as there is against war, it begs the question of why why
don't hear as much about "anti-sanctions" or "anti-embargo" activists as we
do about "anti-war" activists.
In the world of international politics, sanctions *would* be the
likely fallback position should a war against Saddam Hussein's regime fail
due to popular worldwide sentiment against it. Based on past behavior, the
opponents of war do not seem likely to generate as much pressure to stop
sanctions. After all, sanctions (and low-level airstrikes) have been going
on for years without raising much public outcry. When the war began, the
level of protesting went up dramatically.
Therefore I feel that Walter Russell Mead makes a valid point in
the article Michael Sawyer forwarded. Indeed I've been making a similar
point myself: From a humanitarian perspective, the war in Iraq is MUCH LESS
objectionable than what was going on before the war. Not that the sanctions
have been ended even now (though there is a stepped-up international effort
to provide humanitarian aid during a period when Iraqi authorities and
regular sources of sustenance for the Iraqi people may be incapacitated),
but at least their end is now in sight.
Show me someone who protests more loudly against the sanctions than
the war and I'll show you someone whose opposition to the war arises from a
sincere concern for its effect on the Iraqi people and who is perceptive
enough to look past the dramatic distraction of "WAR!" to see the larger
picture. Unfortunately the vast majority of antiwar protesters seem to be
caught up in the spectacle.