The official blog of the Libertarian Party
August 21, 2007
Intervening in our own intervention
In a bog created by U.S. intervention overseas, the U.S. looks to intervene once again, except this time it's in its own intervention. In what must be the paradigm of foreign policy snafus and a complete abdication of the enthusiastic approval of Iraqi democracy, one U.S. Senator is calling for regime change in Iraq once again.
Declaring the government of Iraq "non-functional," the influential chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday that Iraq's parliament should oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his cabinet if they are unable to forge a political compromise with rival factions in a matter of days.
Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has finally voiced an opinion that reflects a growing sentiment of U.S. officials. Yet even with the signs of improvement, the progress can't help but be overshadowed by the absolute political failure in the country. Therefore, some are beginning to believe a regime change of a democratically elected leader in elections that were pushed by the United States is the answer to fixing a problem an interventionist U.S. foreign policy created in the first place. Scratching your head yet?
"I hope the parliament will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and more unifying prime minister and government," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said after a three-day trip to Iraq and Jordan.
Levin's call for change reflects what has previously been a problem for the U.S.: Democracy in the Middle East does not always yield the results America would like to see. What does one do about it? If the U.S. had only learned from a century of experience in the region, intervention would be completely off the table. But, even in America's own foreign policy debacle, intervention is looking to be the only option left.
Not everybody is certain of what will happen if Maliki goes. They only know that they want him gone.
Still, Democrats have quietly begun to voice a view that Maliki must go; Durbin said he told White House national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley that last week. But they acknowledge that they do not know what would happen next. If it appeared that Maliki had been ousted at Washington's behest, his replacement would be seen as a U.S. puppet -- a "kiss of death" in the region, Durbin said.
Maliki's political failures because of sectarian civil war -- something long predicted by Middle Eastern experts and ignored by the Bush administration -- stand in the way of improving conditions in what is America's metaphorical "thorn in the lion's paw." One dangerous aspect of this short-term military progress in Iraq is that politicians hungry for any signs of improvement will use this evidence to justify continuing the Iraqi occupation.
Republican leaders have seized upon any positive statements from lawmakers returning from Iraq to portray Democratic leaders as wedded to failure there while the Democratic Party grows increasingly divided over the war's progress.
Just the other day, Democratic Congressman Brian Baird said the evidence of improvement he saw in Iraq now convinces him that the U.S. must remain in the country until 'the job is done,' as goes the mantra of those still supporting the invasion.
Last Friday, Baird told the Olympian, a newspaper in his district, that he now believes the United States should stay in the country as long as necessary to ensure stability.
Unfortunately, some have been taken in by the short-term progress and falsely believe this is indicative of long-term success. Baird may wish to stay in Iraq until the country is stable, but what if that takes years more, or even decades? Stability in Iraq is not going to come from military victories; it will have to be through political victories, and this is something the U.S. has no idea how to achieve.
Such as the soldiers recommended in Sunday's NY Times op-ed, the best idea is to give the Iraqis more of a leading role in running their country, and intervening in the Iraqi political process is likely to cause more instability than is currently seen. The Iraqi civil war is something the Iraqis must deal with themselves because it is the Iraqis who are infighting and it was the Iraqis whom freely elected Maliki in the first place.
"Imagine if we have to step in with a brand-new leader and a new government," Durbin said. "How many more months would we have to wait?"
Actively undermining Maliki would do many things, and none of them would be to the betterment of Iraq. Firstly, it would show the heavy hand of the American government that has been a widely recognized catalyst of anti-American sentiment in the region for decades now. Secondly, it expresses how little the United States cares about democratic elections that aren't favorable to American interests. Lastly, it commits the same mistake America made in the first place: Intervening into the personal affairs of the Middle East.
We're fours years from this mistake and still paying for it in spades.
Posted by Andrew Davis at August 21, 2007 11:39 AM
Reader Comments:
Should Maliki end hanging upside down in a gas station, let it be Iraqis who do it and not the U.S.
The overthrow of Saddam, accomplished by invasion of Iraq, was an intervention. The creation of an Iraqi government was not intervention, it was nation-building. The two are separate processes.
To confuse them so utterly, shows an inability to articulate the problem, much less the solution.
The overthrow of a dictator was a good thing.
The nation-building, particularly the way it was done, was not a good thing.
Democracy is not necessarily the fitting replacement for dictatorship. If a large majority favor or are soft on terrorism, we cannot expect good results from an election. If such people, like in Gaza, constitute a mortal threat, they must be ruled despotically until the threat is neutralized and they are ready for self-rule.
J.S. Mill warned of the dangers of majoritarian democracy. How ironic that libertarians, themselves a minority within America, are imposing their own majoritarian view of foreign policy, over the objections of libertarians hawks of all stripes.
Please, join this "unoffical" libertarian discussion group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/
"The overthrow of a dictator was a good thing.
The nation-building, particularly the way it was done, was not a good thing."
The war in Iraq is a scam as is the entire "War on Terror" as was the false flag terror operation (ie-inside job) that was the pretext for this phony war, 9/11.
Yes, overthrowing a dictator is a good thing, so who let's focus on overthrowing the corrupt regime that controls our own government. You don't have any right to steal money from Americans (through their taxes) to finance a war of aggression.
Saddam may have been a bad guy, but it should be pointed out that the US government helped install him and supported him for years. Why hasn't anyone in our government who aided Saddam for years been put on trial for treason? Also, it should be pointed out that the US government has killed more Iraqis than Saddam.
I'm sick & tired of too many "Libertarians" dancing around the issue of 9/11 and not taking a strong anti-war stance. This is why I formed Libertarians for 911 Truth. Check it out.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertariansfor911Truth/
KEVIN HALLUCINATED: "How ironic that libertarians, themselves a minority within America, are imposing their own majoritarian view of foreign policy, over the objections of libertarians hawks of all stripes." (END) (THANK GOD)
Again KEVIN, there are no 'libertarian hawks'..Those folks are more apty titled "Republicrats," or etc. assorted god-damned fools/criminals! ;o)
We should not have wasted any time, energy, and resources in invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
Only the Kurdish portion of Iraq is truly stable. The Shia region is stable in comparison to the Sunni provinces. Meanwhile, the Sunni areas are in complete chaos.
We just marched in, so we could just march out.
By the way, the only reason why the Kurdish provinces are stable is because of the Kurdish militias. In addition, the Shia provinces are stable in comparison to the Sunni areas due to the Shia militias.
Kevin, I fail to see how advocating replacing foreign rulers is Libertarian or libertarian when that dictator had not attacked nor planned to attack us.
Replacing dictators is the job of that dictator's countrymen (and the UN so long as the UN's actions do not violate its member nations' rule of law). When the US acts in anything but self defense without a declaration of war from Congress, it's unConstitutional, unWise, and unLibertarian.
The other countries with dictatorial govenrments have to resolve thier problems by overthrowing their dictator. We have to resolve our problems with the Republican/Democratic Deictatorship by peaceful replacement of them by us.
Clark said:
Again KEVIN, there are no 'libertarian hawks'..Those folks are more apty titled "Republicrats," or etc. assorted god-damned fools/criminals! ;o)
(K) I see. People who disagree with Clark are criminals. Since real criminals should be locked up, you are, in effect, advocating that I be locked up. Since I haven't initiated force, such a lock-up would be an initiation of force. This threat, accompanied by swearing, from a self-styled libertarian. At least the Mad Hatter was polite.
Military action abroad doesn't necessarily initiate force. Of course, in any war, some collateral damage occurs; but this would happen also in a war within US borders. US Military action within US borders would also involve taxation.
I favor the privatization of the US military, but to say that foreign intervention is always wrong, while not saying that domestic interventions are always wrong, seems contradictory.
Is there something sacred about national borders? That is, do they provide a moral shield, apart from security considerations?
An outsider reading some of the comments in this blog would conclude that libertarians are delusional (for believing 9/11 was an inside job),
rude (for substituting swear words for debate, and calling for incarceration of dissenters), or just plain out of touch with reality.
Will Mack said:
"Kevin, I fail to see how advocating replacing foreign rulers is Libertarian or libertarian when that dictator had not attacked nor planned to attack us."
(K) Your statement assumes a fact not in evidence. That is, you can't know "a priori" that foreign dictators have not attacked or planned to attack us.
In fact, the US has been attacked. US embassies in Africa don't just explode spontaneously. The WTC bombings(1993 and 2001), and the OKC bombing, were engineered abroad. There is some evidence indicating a level of support from Saddam. For example, read The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis.
We should not exclude libertarians from the LP (and presumably the movement) simply because they do not agree with politically correct interpretations of factual matters.
If you want to learn more, with robust debate, please join:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/
we cannot fall into the all to easy trap of insult style debate if we hope to reach any reasonable conclusions through discourse. leave that to the comment pages of sparkling wiggle videos on youtube.
Libertarian principle is a model. It works well within clearly defined borders.
However, the real world involves a world of dictators, terrorists, and weapons of mass destruction outside of our neat model, which were born from non-libertarian principles.
When a Libertarian is hawkish, it is because they recognize the world is not and has not been libertarian and must be dealt with appropiately.
We can't participate in the messy world for years and suddenly stick our head in the sand. The sky will surely fall as the twin towers fell.
Keith, you said:
"We can't participate in the messy world for years and suddenly stick our head in the sand. The sky will surely fall as the twin towers fell."
I wouldn't call what our gov't did "participating". We've had an interventionist foreign policy and the Twin Towers falling are a result of that.
Kevin, you said:
"In fact, the US has been attacked. US embassies in Africa don't just explode spontaneously. The WTC bombings(1993 and 2001), and the OKC bombing, were engineered abroad. There is some evidence indicating a level of support from Saddam. For example, read The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis."
The OKC bombing engineered abroad? That's news to me. All this time I thought it was Timothy McVeigh. Even if it was engineered abroad, that just shows it's a result of our hawkish foreign policy, not an excuse for it.
Let me ask you guys this: is it okay to apply the same hawkish foreign policy to individuals? What about individuals residing in the US? What about individuals in the US, assuming Congress made absolutely no attempts to regulate or restrict our right to bear arms? Is it okay then to have a "pre-emptive" policy in place, even unofficially like we had for decades abroad?
I'm curious because to me it seems you have one standard for individuals and one standard for nations. To me it looks like Democrats wanting social freedom but not economic freedom and Republicans wanting economic freedom but not social freedom (in theory)...both parties have a double standard on their freedoms (in theory).
I always saw libertarians having a consistent view of Freedom...to act only in self-defense, not offending first.
This it the first time I've seen a different take on it, so I'm curious about your views. Do explain. When is it okay to strike pre-emptively?
What if your evidence is wrong? Should you be punished for striking first as an individual would in a court of law?
I generally support Democrats, but this is absurd. "Reintervering" now will convince all of Iraq for generations that we absolutely cannot be trusted and that we have only the worst of intentions for them. There is already a movement in Iraq to can Malaki (I believe they were featured on one of the big evening news shows) and it appeared to me that they were getting along nicely. At this point we should we reducing our involvement in Iraq in any way possible, and removing Malaki will only get us deeper into it.
If we apply the same criteria to the LP that we apply to Malaki, maybe the LP also needs an intervention of sorts?
| 
Should Maliki end hanging upside down in a gas station, let it be Iraqis who do it and not the U.S.
Posted by: Creech at August 21, 2007 02:12 PM