This was originally posted on my blog, here. It has commenting capability if you’d like to leave a longer reply without reblogging.
Q. I’ve just recently stumbled onto your blog, and though I’ve considered myself a libertarian for many years, after reading your positions on foreign policy I must admit I’m not quite there….How do you reconcile the very virtuous and very practical philosophy of limited meddling and lessened militarism with what I cannot help but think is — in many cases — an also virtuous and also practical involvement? Inefficacy aside (and I wholly wish we were able to do better, more, and faster) can we really, in good conscience, turn tail on southeast Asia? Can we really bail on the good guys in the Middle East? Pragmatically, can we get out of what have really become our global obligations — without making things worse? Thank you ahead of time. I’ve very much enjoyed your take on the state of things, your quality of thought, and exceptional writing. — John, from the internet.
A. This is a fairly common objection I hear to the libertarian philosophy, especially from those coming from a hawkish background on the right or a strongly humanitarian background on the left. They’ll be with me until I get to foreign policy, and then it’s something along these lines: “Noninterventionism definitely has some good points on paper, but it won’t work in the real world, where we have diverse national interests to protect and a moral obligation to defend those under attack.”
As you put it very well, American military involvement in the internal affairs of other countries can often look like a noble — even necessary — goal.
I’d argue that a closer look reveals it is neither. Three points:
1. How do you reconcile the very virtuous and very practical philosophy of limited meddling and lessened militarism with what I cannot help but think is — in many cases — an also virtuous and also practical involvement? Well, I begin with the acknowledgement that I am not omniscient and the government definitely isn’t either. Also, neither of us can see into the future.
This may sound like I’m trivializing the question, but it’s actually very important: We never know all the factors involved in a military intervention, which makes it difficult if not impossible to know if our involvement is virtuous or practical.
Take our history in Afghanistan as an example. During the rise of the brutal Taliban regime in 1996, the New York Times reported, “the Taliban emerged from the chaos of a war between American proxy warriors and Soviet troops, and is still supported by the arms network of American allies created to challenge Soviet power.” Of course, less than a decade later the US government once again got involved in Afghanistan to remove the very same Taliban, and we’re still there today. In the middle of the Cold War, intervening in Afghanistan against the Soviets seemed like the obviously right choice: It would allow self-determination, halt the march of communism, and keep the Evil Empire in check. Now? Maybe not so much.
Unfortunately, lessons like this are easily forgotten. With each drumbeat marching us into a new war, we quickly forget questions which steadier heads might ask about the motives of those calling for war, the clarity with which we’ve identified the good guys (if there are any), or the likelihood our involvement will even help. Dropping bombs into messy situations we very clearly do not understand will never be virtuous or practical, no matter how much we wish it might be.
2. “Inefficacy aside…” Perhaps unfortunately, inefficacy can never be an aside when lives are at stake. After all, isn’t saving lives what might impart some virtue to interventionism? Moreover, even in good economic times, the United States do not have unlimited resources to waste on failed interventions.
I only need mention “Iraq” and “Afghanistan” to conjure nightmares of inefficacy. We’ve been at war in these two countries for a decade, spending trillions and creating new enemies daily. Thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians have lost their lives, and their blood has been like Miracle-Gro for terrorist networks.
In Libya, yes, American forces helped depose a ruthless dictator, but the new government may be strongly influenced by Al Qaeda, the very organization we’re fighting just a couple countries away. You mentioned the “good guys in the Middle East.” Are you certain of who they are? Certain enough to stand by that choice for even a decade — or just the time it takes to fly from one country to the next? And if you are, do you really believe our government will help them if there’s nothing to be gained in the process?
On the humanitarian front, interventions have been as dubiously successful as they have been moral. Look at the humanitarian crises of the last 50 to 60 years and tell me if there’s a clear pattern of intervention saving lives and producing lasting peace: Korea, Vietnam, Iraq/Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Somalia. A quick Google search will quickly indicate that there is no real consensus among those who study the outcomes of intervention as to whether or not interventionism is a net positive for peace and human rights.
3. “Pragmatically, can we get out of what have really become our global obligations — without making things worse?“ Let me pose a slightly different question: Pragmatically, can we maintain our global obligations without making things worse?
Just over half of American soldiers now agree that “the use of military force to fight terrorism creates hatred that breeds more terrorism,” a rate which is echoed in the general public. They’re on to something.
The mirror our government and media have given us is warped: The way we view ourselves and our militarism — benevolent if imperfect, pure in intentions if confused about facts, and ultimately a net force for good — doesn’t square with either policy realities or the perspective of the rest of the world. Unsurprisingly, people in other countries don’t like to be occupied any more than we would.
Would abandoning our self-assigned obligations result in some negative effects? Yes, absolutely. It would be unrealistic to deny that. But continuing on our present course is not without consequence either. And based on our history, what our enemies themselves are telling us, and our limited resources and knowledge, I’d contend that the more practical — and indeed more virtuous — option is to change course, and change it fast.
