MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘war lobby’

A Litany of Pride – The American Conservative

Posted by M. C. on March 28, 2023

Twenty years ago, we invaded Iraq at the counsel of detached wonks who have always been too impressed with themselves.

Respected, though controverted, surveys figure the number of dead in the hundreds of thousands and perhaps even more than a million. Many more Iraqis were injured, and an estimated third of the population, 9.2 million people, were displaced at some point, with more than two million driven overseas. The numbers are shocking, a special outrage for an aggressive war based on falsehoods that failed to fulfill its objective and left behind a sometime failing state

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-litany-of-pride/

Doug Bandow

Two decades ago, the worst president in modern U.S. history plunged the country into a foolish and needless war. Thousands of Americans died. Hundreds of thousands of foreigners lost their lives. Trillions of dollars were squandered. Yet few Washington policymakers have learned anything from the experience.

Indeed, some members of the blob, as the foreign policy community is indecorously known, are most worried about the American people opposing new misadventures. Journalist Natalia Antonova sees “defeatism in the words and actions” of those who oppose Washington’s once unstoppable War Party. AEI’s Hal Brands fears “the ‘no more Iraqs’ mindset.”

Washington, D.C., has long been full of people full of themselves—convinced that they saw further into the future than others, had the mandate of heaven to remake the world, and needn’t concern themselves about the human cost of their grand ambitions. The collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed an especially toxic mix of hubris and sanctimony.

In 2001 the neoconservative war lobby found its president, the ideological simpleton George W. Bush, and its moment, the horrific 9/11 terrorist attack—tragic retaliation for years of foreign meddling. Encouraged by modern political Know Nothings, Americans imagined that they were targeted for their virginal innocence. However, people in the Middle East and beyond saw something very different: multiple military interventions, sustained support for dictatorships and occupations, and endless hypocrisies.

Bush plunged the U.S. into a misguided military crusade and nation-building campaign, justified by lies and designed by fantasists. The president’s minions advanced their convenient falsehoods even though abundant contradictory evidence circulated within the administration. Factotums and pundits alike believed what they wanted to believe, unconcerned with the consequences. Even today, few war advocates acknowledge error let alone express regret for the catastrophic consequences of their policy.

Republicans were the woke warriors of their time, seeking to silence anyone who questioned their Great Leader in Washington. When challenged over sources and evidence, members of the war party responded with vitriol and bile. To oppose aggressive war meant one was an idiot, traitor, or both. To oppose an illegal invasion meant one was pro-Saddam Hussein. To oppose a preventive war against a phantom power meant one was unconcerned that the smoking gun might yield a mushroom cloud.

Amid the tsunami of neocon misinformation, conservative betrayal, and Republican opportunism, the mid-2000s were a bleak time to be a dissenter. A once friendly newspaper essentially stopped running my articles, even on other subjects; online conservative publications lost interest in my submissions, despite claiming to be open to all; one site retrospectively purged my anti-war columns from its archives. Within my own organization a senior staffer in another department advocated war on a nominally libertarian website. The American Conservative was one of the few publications to stand on principle, despite the resulting torrent of insults and obloquy.

Of course, Iraq was not the Bush administration’s only misadventure. Dubya also imagined that Afghanistan could be turned into a liberal democracy, a shining city on a Central Asian hill. Instead of making a deal with the demoralized, defeated Taliban, the faux warrior president left American troops in Afghanistan, fighting to turn that ancient land half a world away into a U.S. client and military base. This effort, too, came to a calamitous end. There, as in Iraq, other people paid the highest price for Washington’s arrogance and incompetence.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

In Defense of Tucker Carlson – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 19, 2019

The dreams of creating an empire that encompasses the whole world, enforcing “liberal democracy” on the nations, as supported by Bolton and others, lead down a futile path. And whenever a futile path is pursued through enforcing its policies on the globe, it is no longer futile, but suicidal.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/atilla-mert-sulker/in-defense-of-tucker-carlson/

By

Amid rumors that Tucker Carlson may have suddenly been suspended off of Fox News, some are taking this claim even further, predicting that he may be replaced by Ben Shapiro. While these claims have remained only rumors, it is important to not lose sight of the importance of Carlson and his platform. Whether these rumors become reality or not, I fully stand by this defense of Carlson.

Many small government activists, even, have gone as far as to condemn and chastise Carlson for his criticism of Austrian economics. While the claims made by Carlson in this regard are short sighted and unwarranted, many conservatives and libertarians have allowed this to obscure the importance of Carlson. The fact of the matter is that while the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Levins of the world continuously call for more war in the Middle East and elsewhere, Carlson remains a bold anti-war maverick. And one of very few on Fox News.

Let’s go through some of the various warmongers and neocons that Carlson has exposed on his show. Beginning with one that is prominent in the current administration- John Bolton. In an interview with Bolton last year, before his appointment to national security advisor, Carlson caught Bolton off guard, and began to grill him on whether we should go to war with Iran. “There haven’t been any Iran sponsored terror attacks in this country”, Carlson pointed out, as he proceeded to rightfully connect terror attacks on the U.S. to “Saudi Arabians, the Gulf States, and the Sunni Arab World”. A disgruntled Bolton then proceeded to say that it’s Iran’s “support for terrorism generally, that should concern us- not neccessarily specific attacks on the United States”. Of course, here, Bolton is alluding to the dream of the liberal international order, in which our interests lie in the promotion of “liberal democracy” worldwide.

Carlson then blatantly noted that to commit any number of troops or increase military spending, it would make much more sense to “go after the people who are attacking us here first”. Sidestepping this, Bolton then began to put the blame on North Korea, and their nuclear weapons. Bolton then returned to point out that had Israel bombed Iran 15 years before, we’d be in a much better place now. Carlson then pointed out that regime change in Iraq and Libya turned out to be a disaster, leading Bolton to immediately stop him there. Bolton ended the interview, saying that the analysis of Carlson and like minded non-interventionists, was “simplistic”, his final defense.

On many other occasions, Carlson has pointed out his abhorrence to the idea of war with Iran, grilling Bolton and the war lobby following the recent threat of war with Iran. “How many people will be killed? The most basic of all questions, but a question too rarely asked by leaders contemplating war”, Carlson asserted. Carlson also rebuked a clip where someone on CNN criticized the president for being indecisive on whether to strike Iran, as Trump decided last minute not to follow through with the prospective attack on Iran. Of course, in Washington, being indecisive is a greater sin than killing hundreds in a strike.

Carlson also once faced, perhaps the most crazed of all war mongers, Ralph Peters, who helped lead the anti-Russia hysteria. Peters branded the Russians as “terrorists” who hate the United States, thus it is wrong to seek alliances with them in any ways. To Peters, Putin “is as close to pure evil” as he can think of. Like Bolton, in pursuit of the liberal international order, Peters asserted that “we should be strengthening our alliances with democracies”. When Carlson asked why the Russians constituted a threat to the U.S., Peters compared Carlson to a Hitler apologist, saying “you sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1938 saying Hitler hasn’t attacked us”. Of course, this is a classic move in the neocon playbook. Carlson’s scuffle with Peters is reminiscent of when John McCain called out Ron Paul in a debate for supporting “isolationism”, which “allowed Hitler to come to power”. All Paul was doing was pointing out the failures of the war in Iraq.

University of Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer notes that “the (liberal international) order contains the seeds of its own destruction”. For if the dream of liberal hegemony, i.e., that the United States can impose its will on the rest of the world, is to prevail, a unipolar world would be needed. This is not so, as China has emerged as a major world power, bringing back “balance of power politics”. But China’s emergence as a major world power was inevitable, Mearsheimer explains, through integrating it into the liberal international order, “making it richer and richer”. Thus the quest to achieve a liberal international order lead back to balance of power politics, making the former a futile endeavor…

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »