It Will Never, Ever Be Gillespie’s War
Bill Quick

Why Obama’s Iraq War Will Be a Disaster – The Daily Beast

Americans famously don’t know much about history, but the willingness to ignore the immediate decade-plus of failure and plunge back into the fog of war without any clear articulation of national interests, exit strategy, or even obvious battle plan borders on the criminally insane.

This is true.  But even if Obama did – or Bush had – come up with a definition of victory, an articulation of national interests, an exit strategy, and a solid battle plan, Nick Gillespie, who wrote the above, would still oppose the effort with every fiber of his being.  Because Libertarianism.  Which is nothing  more than a thin veneer over his bone-deep, suicidal pacifism.

Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

It Will Never, Ever Be Gillespie’s War — 4 Comments

  1. He _can_ support it if we are attacked first, under the nonaggression principle. I don’t know if he _would_.

    And frankly, I’m not impressed in the nonaggression principle on the world stage. People always say “3000 people died when the WTC fell,” but they forget that that only happened because the buildings’ skeletons were stronger than Osama thought.

    If those buildings fell right away, 100,000 people would have died. Roll that around in your head. A hundred thousand people. If AQ or IS or the next group were to try something like this again, not that I think anyone would go for the same attack, I don’t think they’d underestimate the building again. And that’s where I have a falling out with the nonaggression principle, because I don’t think a society has to wait for a 5- or 6-figure death toll to go after someone.

  2. A lot of big-L Libertarians seem to interpret the non-aggression principle as essentially meaning complete pacifism. They may pay lip service to the possiblity of self defense, but especially between nation they can never seem to find any situation that merits retaliatory force.

    Me, I go by definitions: We were not attacked on 9/11 by “al Qaeda” or “Osama bin Laden.” We were attacked by militant Sunni Islam, via a surrogate supported by Saudi Arabia and possibly others. Just as we were attacked in a naked act of war by Shia militant Muslims backed by the Iranian government when they stormed our embassy.

    Hence, the casus belli for retaliatory war already exists, and I would have retaliated massively against everybody responsible – gangs, sects, and goverments – and the non-aggression principle wouldn’t have troubled my sleep at all.

    • because I don’t think a society has to wait for a 5- or 6-figure death toll to go after someone.

      I interpret a believable threat of force as aggression.

      Some Libertarians don’t like this. They don’t view “I have this gun and I am going to use it to kill you” as aggression. Many such Libertarians would be dead in less civilized times.

      • I interpret a believable threat of force as aggression.
        Some Libertarians don’t like this. They don’t view “I have this gun and I am going to use it to kill you” as aggression. Many such Libertarians would be dead in less civilized times.

        QFT.

Add Comment Register



Leave a Reply