Iraq - Most Opposition to USgov Policy Is NOT Anti-War

Activists List
1

I've pointed out in previous discussions of Iraq that according to some of the anti-interventionists' own numbers, many more Iraqis were dying under the sanctions that preceded the most recent chapter of the Gulf War, than in the war itself or the low-intensity conflict which has followed. This begs the question, why does there seem to be so much more opposition to U.S. government (USgov) policy on Iraq now than there was during the sanctions period? Two major reasons:

(1) Iraq is much more in the news now
(2) It's easier and "sexier" to be against "war" than to oppose sanctions (even though calling the opposition to Bush administration policy on Iraq "anti-war" is inaccurate, as I explain below)

  Most of the opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq is NOT anti-war per se, despite the language generally used by people on both sides of the debate in the United States. An honest evaluation of the politics involved should acknowledge that it's not the war as a whole that's being protested (i.e. the actions of BOTH sides in the conflict), nor is it even the military operations being conducted by USgov troops in Iraq that are the focus opposition. Rather it is the very fact that the USgov has a military presence in Iraq at all.

  If the USgov military role in Iraq were limited to a strictly defensive one (attempting to safeguard the newly elected Iraqi government, protect civilians and infrastructure, and so on), I don't think the level of opposition to administration policy would significantly decrease. In fact opposition might soon increase, because without an offensive component to USgov military operations in Iraq, the insurgents would probably be able to consolidate their positions, and with secure bases, soon be in a position to kill more USgov and affiliated NGO personnel in Iraq, and it is American casualties more than anything that fuels the opposition (see reason #1 above).

  A true anti-war movement that was motivated primarily by a concern for human life might ask questions such as:

(1) Where is war inflicting the most human suffering right now? (Hint: It isn't Iraq)
(2) Would the withdrawal of USgov forces from Iraq stop the war there, or threaten to make it longer and bloodier?
(3) Who is responsible for the worst abuses in the Iraq conflict, and how can we get the combatants in Iraq to adopt more humane rules of war?

Yours in liberty,
        <<< Starchild >>>

On Sunday, December 18, 2005, at 02:16 PM, tradergroupe wrote (in part):

2

Ron:

Let's suppose that one agreed entirely with what you say. What do you say
to the problem that hostile autocratic regimes tend to be far better
militarily organized than any peaceful anarchic society that relied solely
upon voluntary contributions to finance a war and individual efforts in
fighting it? Seems to me, such a society would not last long under the laws
of the jungle (in a geopolitical sense)

A response which I have heard, which I find very naive and dangerous is
"well, those countries would see how peaceful our society is and thus have
no reason to want to attack us because we are an important trading
partner".

I would love to live in a world where military was not necessary. However,
due to human nature and it's various vices, I don't think such a world is
possible. That's why I'm a minarchist, and not an anarchist. That's why I
believe the US needs to have allies in the world and stick up for those
allies when they are attacked or menaced.

-Derek

3

Dear Derek;

All well and good - but due to our unique geographical position the
only peoples we need fear who could invade us is Mexico or Canada.

At the present time I don't believe either is planning on an
outright invasion of the US.

Mexico is of course using the "silent invasion" of immigration both
overt legal and covert illegal. Canada I'm not to sure about.

This is why I still believe good old George Washington had it
right, " No entangling alliances."

Free trade rules!!! Not free war!!!

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

--- In lpsf-activists@yahoogroups.com, Derek Jensen <derekj72@g...>
wrote:
>
> Ron:
>
> Let's suppose that one agreed entirely with what you say. What do
you say
> to the problem that hostile autocratic regimes tend to be far
better
> militarily organized than any peaceful anarchic society that
relied solely
> upon voluntary contributions to finance a war and individual
efforts in
> fighting it? Seems to me, such a society would not last long
under the laws
> of the jungle (in a geopolitical sense)
>
> A response which I have heard, which I find very naive and
dangerous is
> "well, those countries would see how peaceful our society is and
thus have
> no reason to want to attack us because we are an important trading
> partner".
>
> I would love to live in a world where military was not necessary.
However,
> due to human nature and it's various vices, I don't think such a
world is
> possible. That's why I'm a minarchist, and not an anarchist.
That's why I
> believe the US needs to have allies in the world and stick up for
those
> allies when they are attacked or menaced.
>
> -Derek
>
>
> On 12/19/05, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@y...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Starchild;
> >
> > Any war - any where - at any time is the STATE using its
resources and its
> > people to kill another STATEs people and their resources - this
globally
> > speaking is wrong. You defend against aggression on your State
and your
> > people.
> >
> > Iraq did not have the resources to invade the US - Grenada did
not have
> > the resources to invade the US - Panama did not have the
resources to invade
> > the US - N. Vietnam did not have the resources to invade the US.
> >
> > When you go looking for trouble as a STATE you will find it and
this means
> > the use of the STATES people and its resources for an end
without a means.
> >
> > Ron Getty
> > SF Libertarian
> >
> >
> > *Starchild <sfdreamer@e...>* wrote:
> >
> > I've pointed out in previous discussions of Iraq that according
to
> > some of the anti-interventionists' own numbers, many more Iraqis
were
> > dying under the sanctions that preceded the most recent chapter
of the
> > Gulf War, than in the war itself or the low-intensity conflict
which
> > has followed. This begs the question, why does there seem to be
so much
> > more opposition to U.S. government (USgov) policy on Iraq now
than
> > there was during the sanctions period? Two major reasons:
> >
> > (1) Iraq is much more in the news now
> > (2) It's easier and "sexier" to be against "war" than to oppose
> > sanctions (even though calling the opposition to Bush
administration
> > policy on Iraq "anti-war" is inaccurate, as I explain below)
> >
> > Most of the opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq is
NOT
> > anti-war per se, despite the language generally used by people
on both
> > sides of the debate in the United States. An honest evaluation
of the
> > politics involved should acknowledge that it's not the war as a
whole
> > that's being protested (i.e. the actions of BOTH sides in the
> > conflict), nor is it even the military operations being
conducted by
> > USgov troops in Iraq that are the focus opposition. Rather it is
the
> > very fact that the USgov has a military presence in Iraq at all.
> >
> > If the USgov military role in Iraq were limited to a strictly
> > defensive one (attempting to safeguard the newly elected Iraqi
> > government, protect civilians and infrastructure, and so on), I
don't
> > think the level of opposition to administration policy would
> > significantly decrease. In fact opposition might soon increase,
because
> > without an offensive component to USgov military operations in
Iraq,
> > the insurgents would probably be able to consolidate their
positions,
> > and with secure bases, soon be in a position to kill more USgov
and
> > affiliated NGO personnel in Iraq, and it is American casualties
more
> > than anything that fuels the opposition (see reason #1 above).
> >
> > A true anti-war movement that was motivated primarily by a
concern for
> > human life might ask questions such as:
> >
> > (1) Where is war inflicting the most human suffering right now?
(Hint:
> > It isn't Iraq)
> > (2) Would the withdrawal of USgov forces from Iraq stop the war
there,
> > or threaten to make it longer and bloodier?
> > (3) Who is responsible for the worst abuses in the Iraq
conflict, and
> > how can we get the combatants in Iraq to adopt more humane rules
of war?
> >
> > Yours in liberty,
> > <<< Starchild >>>
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, December 18, 2005, at 02:16 PM, tradergroupe wrote (in
> > part):
> >
> > > How many children were killed under this and the previous
> > > administrations? Try 500,000. Or as a US Secretary of State
Madeline
> > > Albright said in a recorded interview after being asked about
those
> > > childrens deaths, "It was worth it".
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > - Visit your group "lpsf-
activists<[http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists](http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-activists)>"
> > on the web.
> >
> > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > lpsf-activists-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<lpsf-activists-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <[http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/](http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/)>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
> --
> View my blog at [http://derekj72.blogspot.com](http://derekj72.blogspot.com)
>
> Illegitimis non carborundum
>

4

Derek,
Switzerland has
no Allies, and
it has done
quite well
defending
itself. The U.
S. is blessed
with a large
population of
perhaps the
most vicious
fighters known
to mankind, the
Scotch Irish,
and in places
where they
dominate the
population, the
indiginwous
National Guards
are quite
formidable. I
saw this with
my own wyes as
I worked for
the Army for
eight years
inspecting
safety and
health
programs. The
professionalism
with which
these peograms
were managed
and the over
all bearing of
the peronell
was strikingly
diverse. The DC
National Guard
as well as the
Massachusetts
Guard could not
hold back the
forces of
Groucho Marx's
Kingdom for an
hour, while the
Kentucky
National Guard
could single
handedly be a
superpower. Thw
point is, No
entagling
alliances,
invicable
homeland
degense and a
Navy sedcond to
none and able
to punish any
aggresor to the
US or it's
commerce, is
approprote and
doable in the
context of
minimal
government.
alliances only
bring trouble.
See G.w.'s
farewell
address.