No More World Police

I was speaking with a colleague when the question was put to me "Would the Libertarians have supported America's entry into World War II?"

This is not a simple question, and it behooves us to remember we are looking at this from decades after the event, but I think we can still draw some important conclusions.

When the Libertarians say that the US should not be the world police, we mean this specifically in that we should not be sticking our nose into conflicts where we have no direct interest, such as was the case in Mogadishu.

There are three compelling cases that the Libertarians would support military action.

The first one is easy, self defense. Few will deny the right to protect yourself, and the Libertarians are absolute on this point. Everyone has the right to defend himself. This extends to preemptive actions as well. One does not have to wait to be attacked to defend oneself.

The second is a clear economic interest. This is really an extension of the first, only in terms of property and not life. The USA cannot stand by idle while its supply of oil or other needed commodities are threatened. Libertarians absolutely support the right to protect property.

The third case is a bit trickier, and has lead us into some sticky situations where we do not belong. The third case is that of genocide. The systematic extermination of a class of people, for any reason, is an attack on humanity at large, and as members of humanity we have the moral obligation to act if we can.

With these as the ground rules, what conclusions can we draw?

Would the Libertarians support America's entry into world war II? Absolutely, on all three counts. Americans were being killed on ships being torpedoed, our economic interests were in serious jeopardy, and of course, Pearl Harbor removed all doubt about the intent of the combatants. The presence of holocaust was largely unknown, and it is only with hindsight that we can say the Libertarians would support war on that criteria as well.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Afghanistan? Absolutely. We are defending ourselves from a clear, present and proven danger.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the first time? Yes, the threat of Iraqi expansion into the Saudi oil fields was compelling.

Would the Libertarians support the attack on Iraq the second time? Yes, but not for the reasons the Bush administration put forth. I find it preposterous to think that Iraq posed a clear and present danger to the US mainland, and it was well contained against expansion into the Saudi oil fields. However, it should be acknowledged by all that we set Saddam Hussein up and used him in our proxy war against Iran. Therefore we are partially responsible for his actions, and he proved to be a genocidal bastard. It rightly falls to us clean our own proxy house.

Would the Libertarians support any military action in the pirate situation off of Somolia? Of course. American interests are being threatened.

Would the Libertarians support any military action in Gaza? No. We have no interested there.

Would the Libertarians support preemptive attacks on Iran? If a clear and present danger presents itself, of course.

Would the Libertarians support military action in Darfur? Only if genocide can be shown, which I believe is the case.

What wars would the Libertarians not support? The invasions of Panama and Grenada to name a few.