Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Neoconservatives are the Flat-Earthers of Foreign Policy

Posted by M. C. on April 27, 2022

In October of 2001, George W. Bush rejected the Taliban’s offer to hand Osama Bin Laden over to America in exchange for evidence of his guilt. The war in Afghanistan could have been avoided. Instead, NATO declared Article V (war) for the first time in its history.

by Keith Knight

Douglas Murray, the author of Neoconservatism: Why We Need It, claims:

Neoconservatism is not a cabal or a party, but rather a sense, an instinct, a way of looking at the world. That way of looking at the world is, in my definition, a blend of idealism and realism. We look at the world as it is, but act in the world to make it as we would like it to be. This makes our instincts different from traditional conservatives who often distrust social engineering projects or any form of alteration of a status quo they perpetually see as being an irreversible if often quietly enjoyable decline.

These are not defining characteristics of neoconservatives. Communists, fascists, minarchists, libertarians, and conservatives would have no trouble saying that they have goals in mind and that there are realities that also must be dealt with. As a libertarian, I hold the ideal that the principles of self-ownership and voluntary contracts are worth striving for. I also recognize the reality: that many people believe that other people (i.e., the state or collective) own your body, and that voluntary contracts are exploitative.  

Murray also leaves out the small fact that in the pursuit of their alleged goals, neoconservatives often justify slavery in the form of military conscription and murdering civilians with bombings and blockades. 

The Unrealistic and Unideal 

To the Neoconservative I ask: 

When, if ever, would another country be morally justified in bombing British or American citizens and forming blockades around our countries to starve us?

Has the war on terrorism decreased the number of Al-Qaeda members or international terrorists since 2001? 

Have countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen been “stabilized” or democratized? 

As a result of these interventions, are America and her allies stronger nations with more international respect?

If the National Socialist violation of Polish independence was a crime worthy of waging war in 1939, why was Poland given to Joseph Stalin in 1945?

Did Britain’s 1914 declaration of war on Germany stabilize Europe? 

It’s as though the Neoconservative has never stopped to think about costs, downsides, or unintended consequences of these policies. It turns out that politicians who are commonly seen as self-interested liars who will say anything to get elected are also untrustworthy when it comes to waging wars.

The 21st Century Opportunity to Lead the World

In July of 2021, Ayaan Hirsi Ali used her credentials as a former Muslim to debate at FreedomFest.  Ms. Ali says: 

…I read Bin laden. They’re not saying they’re acting the way that their acting because bombs are dropped on them… If they were saying, ‘It’s because of American foreign policy, it’s because of the bombs,’ I would be the first one in line to say, ‘Well, it’s very easy, we stop bombing, they stop attacking us, and they stop oppressing their people…’ This is a fact… Let’s read bin Laden together, let’s read al Qaeda together.

This is unequivocally false. Two sources using Bin Laden’s own words will suffice for now, but if you’d like 23 examples, see my video response to Ms. Ali.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: