Lawrence Auster writes:
“Meanwhile, America’s actual reason for fighting Hussein——to prevent his development of weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood of their falling into the hands of terrorist groups targetting America——is never mentioned in this dishonest article.”

Or perhaps they are among the few who are honest, or at least haven’t fallen for the old bait and switch.

Joe Sobran gives us the low down, although his article in the latest, 2/13/2003, issue of the Wanderer is even better.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030206.shtml

The best method for discerning the true motives of government, is to always first follow the money trail.

The Sobran article also fails to even mention, let alone address, let alone challenge, let alone refute, the actual stated reasons for finishing what was started in 1990 with Iraq.

I think that it is possible to take a principled rightist anti-war stance that addresses the issues rather than pretending that they don’t exist. You won’t find that principled stance in anything by Sobran, Higgs, or Roberts though. What is more, it is exactly this self-marginalization on the part of the antiwar right that guarantees that the neocons will write the accepted history of whatever actually happens.

Out of the jaws of defeat the antiwar right grasps an extra bonus defeat, and we will all be the worse for it.

Matt’s description of the self-marginalization of the anti-war right, by which they actually give MORE power to their neoconservative foes, should be read by every paleocon in America. Unfortunately, most of them are so self-marginalized that that they would be unable to grasp what he is saying.

Matt,

As you know, any good 750 word Op-Ed piece attempts to get one point across, they are never intended to answer every question which might arise.

The US is going to war with Iraq in spite of the UN treaty with Iraq, not because of it. The judgement of breach rests with the UN Security Council, not with any single member of the UN. The US does not have a treaty with Iraq. And thus the US may claim reasons for going to war, but the breaking of a treaty that the US is only part of via the UN is not a reasonable one.

Not that it stopped the US from enforcing no-fly zones on its own initiative.

Let the US claim its hegemony of “Pax Americana” is spite of “Pacem in Terris”, but finishing a war which was ended with a treaty between Iraq and the UN, which the US has no more say over than any other member of equal stature, and which the UN claims is not substantively violated is not finishing a war but beginning a new war.

Also, why don’t you do a search on Lew Rockwell’s site, you will find more than one article to your liking, if you prefer principled stances.

“self-marginalization”? Maybe, but I suppose the same could be said of the Holy Father’s position.

It is always better to rest with the angles, than err with the pragmatic world, and its slippery slope.

No one would ever accuse the Republicans or neocons of self-marginalization, but then again no one would accuse them of a principled stance either.

“‘self-marginalization’? Maybe, but I suppose the same could be said of the Holy Father’s position.”

That is a good point. Specifically on the United Nations and on Iraq he seems to have the same “see no evil” attitude expressed by F. Salzer.

“Also, why don’t you do a search on Lew Rockwell’s site, you will find more than one article to your liking, if you prefer principled stances.”

Been there, done that, came up empty. The number of paleos I’ve encountered who take the WMD-terrorism nexus seriously can be counted on one hand, and every single one of those will backtrack and equivocate on it. That’s too bad, because the result is going to be that not only will the Iraqi war happen, but the polemical war will be won by neocons.

Matt writes:
“The number of paleos I’ve encountered who take the WMD-terrorism nexus seriously can be counted on one hand … the polemical war will be won by neocons.”

When a country goes to war, it must demonstrate just cause for doing so, and so likewise the burden of proof is on those who are advocating for war, not on those who oppose it. Since all men are called upon to oppose war without demonstrable just cause.

And since the latest reason for war with Iraq is the WMD-terrorism connection, it must be demonstrated that this aggression exists, and exists in such a manner as to meet the standards of the doctrine of just war.

I, on the other hand, do think there is a transparent justification for why the US is going to war with Iraq, but as an aggressor, not in self defense. Srdja Trifkovic lays out the justification quite nicely:

http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/February2003/0203Trifkovic.html

But whether this speculation of attempting to discern the Bush administration’s justification for war is correct or not, the burden of proof remains with the advocates for war.

And finally, I do find it a bit embarrassing watching the Bush administration’s evolution of reasons for invasion, and their floundering about from one day to the next offering one easily discredited bit of proof after another. How can anyone take such silliness seriously?

It’s difficult for me to take the Paleocons seriously when they are lining up with vile anti-American propagandists such as Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer. It is also difficult when they seem to be advocating the French approach to national security; at the first sign of the enemy, surrender. The Paleo’s like to think of themselves as the real conservative voice of heartland America, but increasingly they sound like whining Euro socialists. Serge Trifkovic is perhaps the exception, but even he seems to contradict himself, recognising the very real threat that Islamic imperialism poses, but unwilling to do much to oppose except restrict immigration. A good idea in and of itself, but hardly a robust defense of the West.

Shawn writes:
“It’s difficult for me to take the Paleocons seriously when they are lining up with vile anti-American propagandists such as Gore Vidal and Norman Mailer.”

I also suspect that they would say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Does their agreement with the nature of the suns movement somehow taint the truth of the matter?

Shawn writes:
“It is also difficult when they seem to be advocating the French approach to national security; at the first sign of the enemy, surrender. The Paleo’s like to think of themselves as the real conservative voice of heartland America, but increasingly they sound like whining Euro socialists”

Please back these assertions up by example.

Shawn writes:
“Serge Trifkovic is perhaps the exception, but even he seems to contradict himself, recognizing the very real threat that Islamic imperialism poses”

The only ones with a false understanding of Islam is the Bush administration with their absurd compassionate Islam version. Also, Iraq is secular not fundamentalist Islamic with many Catholics. But more to the pointe, please explain the contradiction, since the article’s intent is to prove the US are imperialistic, not to deny what is known about Islam.

Shawn writes;
“Robust defense of the west” is an interesting phrase, please explain what you mean by it.

“When a country goes to war…”

Again, that is a complete avoidance of my specific point.

Whether or not a specific war with Iraq is the RIGHT response to the clear and present danger of the terrorism/WMD nexus, I have yet to see a paleocon who consistently:

1) Takes the nexus of terrorism and WMD seriously as a clear and present danger; and

2) Has substantive, credible suggestions as to what can be done about it other than ignoring it.

Again, paleos write themselves out of the picture entirely and hand the keys over to the neocons by dismissing the issue rather than addressing it.

This is similar to the Israel/Palestine thread in the assumption that one side is with the angels and the other with the demons. In my experience with human conflicts it is almost always the case that both sides are in the wrong.

If we assume that Israel is every bit as demonic as its worst critics suppose, that does not explain away the Palestinian decision to initiate a terrorism intifada instead of taking the incredible 2000 deal in front of the whole world. If the Palestinians had taken that deal and the Israelis had reneged in front of the world then the Palestinians might have a moral leg to stand on, but as it is the worst they can get is what they have brought upon themselves. If the Palestinians are in principle unwilling to take that deal the only possible conclusion is that the utter elimination of Israel is the only terms they actually will accept, and short of that they are going to indiscriminately kill civilian women and children until they are either eradicated or get what they want — the complete annihilation of Israel.

I’m not a big fan of Israel or zionism. Israel is a modern liberal state with all that implies. I don’t know the specific history of Israel in nearly as much detail as many, nor frankly does it interest me that much, because NO MATTER WHAT IT IS it doesn’t morally justify the Intifada. It seems to me that the establishment of Israel was probably a bad idea, but then all sorts of stupid and nasty things happened in WWII and we aren’t still fighting the Japanese even though we nuked them. That is because the Japanese have honor and the Palestinians don’t. There is no excuse for the intifada; it is not possible to morally justify such a thing even if the worst of Israel’s critics are completely right. The fact that Israel may have (and even may still be) in theory committed inexcusable wrongs doesn’t justify others in committing inexcusable wrongs.

I got in trouble in a similar thread a few months back about the War between the States. In that thread I pointed out that even if the Southern states legitimately thought they had a right to secede at any time for any reason, and even if Lincoln was the demon that neoconfederates say he was, that doesn’t excuse the attack on Ft. Sumter and the initiation of a the war. In any conflict BOTH sides are morally responsible for their actions.

Of course F. Salzer won’t get it because he is a Lockean. To a Lockean the primary concern is who has what natural rights, and who ought to be killed when those rights are violated. I say that even someone who feels he is oppressed has the moral responsibility to do the right thing, and I reject the entire language of aggressive and assertive “rights” as it is presently understood.

That’s the beauty of VFR. One week I’m a raving nazi genocidal anti-semite and the next I’m a leading spokesman for ZOG imperialist aggression.

Matt,

The topic of this thread is the coming war with Iraq, and in regard to Iraq the burden of proof rests on those who state there is a WMD-terrorist connection.

An assertion of an Iraqi WMD-terrorist connection is not proof of such, nor is it required that such an assertion be taken more seriously, than the falling of oak leaves causes winter, without such proof. The paleos are further under no more obligation to prove there isn’t an Iraqi WMD-terrorist connection than they would be to prove any other negative.

It’s a sad testament to current American polemics that repetitive assertions are accepted as proof, and that those who do the most repetitive asserting win their sophistical war of words.

But even given their lack of obligation, the paleos do address the issue, Rockwell’s site and Chronicles are continuously hammering on the issue. And do make suggestions of proper action and inaction according to what is more fitting to the particular aspect discussed, as well as exposing the errors of the neocons and US government.

………………………………………………………………………………

Secondly with regard to the overall threat from Islam, of which WMD-terrorism could be a part, there are few paleos who deny that Islam is a very real and very dangerous threat. And like the Iraq war itself, have written numerous articles on the subject. You may not care for their suggestions of appropriate action and inaction but to say they are silent and ignoring the issue of Islam, WMD, terrorism etc. makes very little sense to me.

I for one, think the sooner the US government starts seeing Islam through the same eyes as Charles Martel had, the better off we will be. Not that the current state of US is any thrill, but it is far better than Islam; which is as faint a praise as the US could possibly receive.

……………………………………………………………………….

Matt writes:
“Of course F. Salzer won’t get it because he is a Lockean. To a Lockean the primary concern is who has what natural rights, and who ought to be killed when those rights are violated. I say that even someone who feels he is oppressed has the moral responsibility to do the right thing, and I reject the entire language of aggressive and assertive “rights” as it is presently understood.”

No, I’m a Catholic, Locke just happens to clearly express, with some notable exceptions, a simplified version of Catholic Thought. And is more intelligible to the average reader than the encyclicals and doctors of the Church. Which is not quite the same as your description of Locke.

I’m a bit in doubt as to what you mean by aggressive and assertive rights, please clarify.

“The topic of this thread is the coming war with Iraq, …”

Yes, and the nature of the opposition to it is a part of that topic. As I said, I think it may be possible to mount a principled paleo objection that takes the WMD/islamofascism nexus seriously; I just don’t think it has been done. Certainly F. Salzer doesn’t take it seriously when he says, e.g., “It’s a sad testament to current American polemics that repetitive assertions are accepted as proof, …”

If there were a principled paleo objection combined with a constructive notion of what to actually do about the clear and present danger of WMD terrorism I might well sign on. But I haven’t been able to think one up myself and I haven’t read one anywhere.

“And do make suggestions of proper action and inaction according to what is more fitting to the particular aspect discussed,…”

OK. Since Mr. Salzer has read all of these articles perhaps he understands this principled position well enough to articulate it for us here. Stipulating that WMD terrorism is an epistemically certain clear and present danger, what does he propose that we do? Suppose that we had clear confirmation that Saddam Hussein is right now manufacturing an atom bomb and that he has definite plans to use that atom bomb against the U.S. using Islamofascist terrorists as a delivery vehicle. I know it is tough for paleos to make decisions without epistemic certainty as to circumstances, so lets just assume that epistemic certainty for the sake of argument. What do the paleos recommend that we do in that epistemically certain circumstance?

If the answer is not “invade and disarm” then my point is proven at this step and there is no need to go on. But lets suppose I’m wrong and this principled paleo position exists, so “invade and disarm” is the right answer in epistemically certain circumstances.

Now backtrack from that circumstance by altering the epistemic weight to less than certainty. At what point exactly do we decide to do nothing and hope for the best rather than invade and disarm? Please be very specific, so that I can tell exactly what evidence it would take to get unequivocal, wholehearted paleo support for an invasion, if in fact paleos would ever support an invasion. Again, please be specific.

[…]

“I’m a bit in doubt as to what you mean by aggressive and assertive rights, please clarify.”

Maybe a specific example will help. There is a moral truth underlying, for example, the discursive form “right to property”. That moral truth is better expressed in its traditional form, though: that is, “thou shalt not steal”. Expressing it as a “right,” even though there is truth beneath the expression, leads to all manner of moral errors; for example, the primacy of the will, the notion that the “right” is something intrinsic to me rather than derivative from God, etc. Expressing that basic moral truth as a “right” implies that I can unilaterlally, arbitrarily, aggressively demand something of others simply by willing it. It isn’t so much that there isn’t a logically possible proper construction of the word “right” as that it is a discursive slippery slope, and that in almost all cases (including Locke’s) that means of expression leads to error. An individual “right” is the first deontological step toward a more general phenomenalism. Phenomenalism in general doesn’t HAVE to be constructed improperly as a metaphysic (or if it does I don’t know how to demonstrate it); but it almost universally IS improperly constructed. “Thou shalt not steal” honestly constructs the obligation we have toward others; a “right to property” dishonestly asserts our own personal primacy in that assertion. A “right” is something that allows me to feel morally superior when it is violated; someone can fail in an obligation but an obligation cannot be a morally superior object of violation. The deontology of “rights” is more directly connected to the modernist primacy of the will and the culture of personal victimhood than most anyone realizes.

As soon as one adds the qualifier “equal” to the concept of “rights” and makes their protection a primary purpose of government one creates a self-contradiction and becomes a liberal like Locke.

I will repeat an opinion I gave here several months ago. I have a vote, and I cannot consent to the President ordering a few of my countrymen to their deaths in Iraq to save me and many others from WMD. I cannot consent because I am unwilling to die in Iraq. I am unwilling to die for a country and a President that is unwilling to protect my culture.

I believe in a war against Iraq. It is advisable to eliminate the risk that Iraq will use or aid others to use WMD against the U.S. The risk of harm that Iraq poses is high, and the risk of many wartime casualties is very low.

I would consent to the war under the following conditions. The President would stop all illegal immigration by placing troops on the border, would deport all illegal aliens, would fight hard to stop legal immigration, would fight hard to make English the official language, and would fight hard to maintain, at a minimum, the current percentage of the white race in the U.S. All of this the President has the power to do immediately. Moreover, this war can wait a year if necessary until the President does these things.

Conservatives were foolish in fighting the Cold War on their own. The Soviet Union posed no threat of invading the U.S. While the conservatives were politically fighting the Soviet menace mostly by themselves, the liberals assisted an actual multicultural invasion as deadly to American culture as communism/totalitarianism ever was.

Well here we go again. Conservatives have again convinced themselves that they must spend much, if not most, of their political capital protecting American from a foreign military menace and not demand a damn thing in return. Thought it is winnable, this war on Islam could take years.

I suppose marginalization occurs whenever one takes a principled stand that most disagree with. In any event, my anger and frustration is out there for comments, which i will be grateful to hear.

Mr. Murgos’s powerful statement hits me in the heart and the guts. I feel the truth of everything he is saying. In particular, his point about conservatives always investing their political capital in fighting a foreign enemy while allowing other enemies to take over and destroy our country from within is unanswerable. All this brings out the terrible tragic dilemma that we are in, like Jeremiah, who also saw his country being threatened and refused to defend it unless it first straightened itself out with God.

Yet can we let the fact that Bush and the whole establishment are betraying this country culturally, stop us from defending our country from an immediate physical threat? I don’t think so.

Let’s say that we had two enemies, and we had a president who was in cahoots with (or at least was failing to oppose) the first enemy, while he was fighting strongly against the second enemy. And let’s say that the second enemy posed a more immediate threat to our lives. Should the president’s failure or betrayal in the first instance prevent us from working with him to defend our common country from death and disaster in the second instance? I cannot answer yes to that question. Stopping Iraq is so important that if I were 18, I’d be willing to fight in this war. And therefore I support this war.

I feel what Mr. Murgos feels and what Jeremiah felt. But I cannot go their route. Our country and lives are threatened and we must defend ourselves.

I very much appreciate Mr. Auster’s comment and admire his quick thinking. I will give his comment a lot of thought.

Murgos gives a good summary of the best argument against full scale invasion of Iraq. For your consideration, part of Catholic Just War theory: Before legitimate self-defense “all other means of putting an end to it (“it” being the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations, which damage must be lasting, grave and certain) must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.” The “other means” do not have to be “shown” in the sense of actually trying all alternatives and watching them fail, but in the sense of thinking things through and making a judgment. The only way this war squares with that theory is to argue that stopping all illegal immigration, deporting all illegal aliens, etc., i.e. defense, would be impractical or ineffective.

I find it hard to believe we can launch an armada halfway around the world but cannot significantly improve patrols at our border or security at our ports, not to mention find and deport any significant amount of the thousands of illegal aliens from nations most likely to harbor the terrorists we are fighting. Further, I can’t but imagine that fulfilling Murgos’ conditions would not significantly reduce the chances of a terrorist attack on US soil.

However, while fulfilling the conditions would help, perhaps decisively, they’re impractical, especially in the short term. We can’t do it. As unfortunate as it would seem, it would cost too much, in terms of “political capital”, to fulfill those conditions.

In the end then, the argument for invasion is that we are taking Iraq because we can, but not in the cynical sense put forth by some. We are taking Iraq because we can and because doing so is the only practical and effective way of eliminating a grave and imminent danger: Another attack from AQ, this time using Saddam’s weapons.

This of course grants the government the benefit of the doubt with regard to their judgment regarding the “likelihood of their falling into the hands of terrorist groups targeting America”.

For the record I am for stepping up the pressure even to the point of full scale invasion.

Joseph Sobran

Tracing the Box-Cutters

January 30, 2003

President Bush is now promising — again — to present evidence not only that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, but also has links to terrorists, specifically al-Qaeda, which is generally assumed to have mounted the extraordinary attacks of September 11, 2001.

The American public is skeptical. So are Europeans. So are most other countries. Bush has already had plenty of time to back up his charges, and he just hasn’t done it. He insists that Iraq has the prohibited weapons, whether or not UN inspectors find any proof one way or the other. If no such weapons are found, that will only “prove” that the Iraqis have successfully hidden them. Perish the thought that the weapons don’t exist, and that Saddam Hussein, for once in his life, is telling the truth.

It’s well known that Hussein and al-Qaeda hate each other. He regards them as fanatics and loose cannons; they regard him and other Arab rulers like him as traitors to Islam. Why should he share deadly weapons with them? That would put him at their mercy, since the United States would certainly blame him if they were used on American soil. Instant devastation would follow — not against al-Qaeda, which presents no targets, but against Baghdad. Saddam Hussein isn’t crazy enough to make himself a hostage to the whims of Osama bin Laden, or whoever al-Qaeda’s current CEO is.

Less than a week after September 11, according to Bob Woodward’s new book, Bush at War, Bush told his aides, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.” Many of those aides had been hoping for war with Iraq for years, and now their dream was coming true. But where was the evidence to justify it? That was the problem. What if there was no evidence?

If only Iraq could be “linked” to al-Qaeda … if not by facts, then by rhetoric … perhaps by phrases like “axis of evil” … by speculation that Iraq might supply terrorists with its supposed nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons … That was the ticket! All those evil guys stick together, right?

But somehow the connection remained vague and tenuous. The public kept wondering how a “war on terrorism” had turned so quickly into a war on Iraq.

The question in the back of everyone’s mind was, and is, this: If Saddam Hussein had helped mount the 9/11 attacks, why didn’t he furnish some real high-tech weapons? Nukes, poison gas, anthrax … but box-cutters?

Try to imagine the conversation amongst the conspirators. Saddam Hussein: “Can I help you fellows out? We have some really nasty weapons you can use — nuclear, chemical, germs — ” Muhammad Atta: “Gee, thanks. Do you have any box-cutters?” Hussein: “Great idea! How many do you need?” Atta: “Oh, about twenty, if it’s not asking too much.” Hussein: “Twenty it is! Are you sure that’s enough? By the way, we also carry a line of exploding shoes, if you need any.”

Or maybe it went like this. Atta: “We want to give those Americans a real shock. May we use a couple of your nukes?” Hussein: “Sorry, no can do. The Americans would be sure to blame me. But I’d be glad to pitch in a few box-cutters, as many as you need.” Atta (sighing): “Well, I guess we’ll just have to make do with those.” Hussein: “Just try to make sure they can’t be traced back to us.”

But it didn’t work. Apparently the Bush administration saw through the plot and did indeed trace the box-cutters back to Iraq. Or maybe it just wanted an excuse for war with Iraq and is hoping the public will forget that the 9/11 operation had nothing to do with the sort of weapons it accuses Saddam Hussein of hiding up his sleeve.

Bush says he’s sick of games and deceptions. He’s not the only one. The “war on terrorism” has turned into an endless shell game that has little to do with the horrors of 9/11 and everything to do with manipulating Americans, and Europeans, into supporting the war the administration has wanted all along.

Joseph Sobran

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030130.shtml

Matt keeps insisting that paleos take the (Iraqi supplied) WMD/Terrorism nexus seriously. He fails to give any evidence for that nexus. The reason he fails is that there is *no* evidence for such a nexus. There is plenty of evidence against such a nexus. Consider:

1) The first WTC bombing was carried out by Muslims, legally admitted to the United States, using explosives they obtained in Canada (I believe — certainly they did not obtain them from Iraq, or the Bush administration would have told us about it by now).
2) The 9/11 attack was carried out by Muslims, legally admitted to the US, using training, boxcutters, and eventually aircraft they “obtained” right here in the US.
3) The attack on the French oil tanker off Yemen was carried out by a small boat loaded with conventional explosives — again, no evidence of Iraqi involvement.
4) The attack on the Bali disco — specifically targeting Western (Australian) youths — was carried out with conventional explosives. Again, Al Qaeda link yes, Iraq link no.
5) A raid here in London turned up terrorists with possible Al Qaeda links who posessed ricin. They were Algerians, not Iraqis. Again, no Iraqi link. Do you think the Blair government, which has gone so far as plagarizing in trying to make its case for war against Iraq, would conceal any link if it existed.
6) There has not even been a link established between Iraq and the post -9/11 Anthrax attacks. Again, if they was the slightest possible connection, we would have heard about it by now.

Matt wants paleos to take a bogeyman seriously. He wants the US government to commit to killing people, getting at least tens of its own soldiers killed, and occupying a country for years for an entirely hypothetical threat for which there exists not a shred of empirical evidence.

The flip side of this case is that there are very real dangers from the invasion.
1) Resources are not unlimited. The U.S. has only so many competent intelligence officers who specialize in Arab and Muslim affairs. They will be tied down in the Iraq operation, as will military and civilian Arabic linguists, when they should be tasked with destroying Al Qaeda.

2) The war, like all US interventions in the Third World, will lead to increased refugee flows to this country from Iraq, possibly from Turkish Kurdistan. Think about it; who heard of Somali immigrants until we stuck our nose in that mess? We have millions of Filipino immigrants (pace Michelle Malkin) but hardly any Indonesian immigrants. Why? We intervened in the Philipines, but have left Indonesia alone.

3)In the phantasies of neocons, Iraq will be a stepping stone to a “democratic” Middle East. They will push to pursue this objective. I believe that circumstances will force Bush in the same direction. The large number of U.S. forces in the region won’t be safe unless and until all governments of the region are somehow pacified.

I apologize for the length of this post, but I must add one more point. Matt thinks paleos are marginalizing themselves. But where is the evidence that if we support the neocons on this one, there will be any sort of quid pro quo, any lessening of paleos’ current marginalization? No, neocons don’t play the game that way. Look at the Lott affair. Lott was a good soldier for Bush, he voted to give the Bush war powers. He likely led the fight in the Senate on Bush’s behalf. Yet he was attacked first and most viciously by neocons like Andrew Sullivan (if Matt wants vile, both sides can play). No, Peter Brimelow, Lew Rockwell, Jared Taylor, Sam Francis, et al. could sing the praises of this war in chorus and there would be not a single concession on any of the issues that are important to paleos, either from Bush or from establishment conservatives. I think Matt realizes that.

Thanks for indulging the rant.

Mitchell Young, you make an excellent point in your concluding paragraph. For neocons, Trent Lott is a monstrously bad man (WHO HAD ANY IDEA THEY THOUGHT THIS OF HIM!) along the lines of, let’s say, Simon Legree and they went after him accordingly — I have in mind especially William Kristol, a few of whose totally unwarranted comments I read, though I’m sure other neocons made the same comments. It was simply BIZARRE. Personally I never had any respect for Trent Lott (and, as things now stand, I have right around zero for Bill Kristol), but witnessing the neocons’ hatred for that man was astounding, like something out of the twilight zone. And of course, the reasons they hated him so intensely had to do with the exact opposite of why I couldn’t stand him — a situation analagous to the way Christopher Hitchens intensely hated Bill Clinton NOT for any reasons which fans of VFR would recognize, but because he wasn’t left-wing enough! The neocons are a bunch who loathe paleos the way cancer is loathed and they have no intention whatever of making peace with them or meeting them part-way if they can avoid it.

In all this discussion it bears repeating and should be repeated often, that there are ways in which Israel’s security can be guaranteed — much better ways, I would say — without embarking on the insane neocon plan of taking over the whole Middle East in an attempt to transform the people there into the Beaver Cleaver family. It ain’t gonna happen. You have to ask yourself what these people are smoking.

Mr. Murgos expresses a perspective very like my own. With one brother who fought in the first Iraqi war and two currently in reserves who may be called up my close-to-home risks are quite real. For me personally, I would definitely fight in Iraq myself if I thought it would stop a poison gas attack or a nuke attack in New York, for example. I would do so irrespective of all of the other legitimate concerns that paleos raise; so it is EXCLUSIVELY a question of the epistemic certainty of the clear and present danger.

Some of the posts other than Mr. Murgos’ dance around the issue a bit with issues unrelated to the epistemic certainty of clear and present danger, but that are quite valid in themselves. It is true for example that if paleos simply gave unequivocal support to a neocon version of the truth it would be a form of political suicide, and Mr. Young is absolutely right to expect a stab in the back rather than a quid pro quo.

Here is the thing: I don’t expect paleos to support the war. Hell, I don’t know that I support it myself. It isn’t an either/or choice of support the war or self-marginalize. The self-marginalization comes from rhetoric like some of the above that ridicules the notion that there is a clear and present danger. With al Quaida, Hamas, and other islamofascist operatives known to be in Iraq under Iraqi protection, as simply one example, the outright dismissal and ridicule is not credible. Paleo hatred of neocons (which I DO understand) is corrupting paleo objectivity.

Many of the paleo arguments above are good. The self-marginalizing argument is not “don’t go to war”. As I said way up in this thread, I think a principled paleo opposition is possible, and I would even like to help construct it. The specious self-marginalizing arguments are these:

1) Dismissal/ridicule of the clear and present danger (the Sobran “box cutter” article is a perfect example of this nonsense);

2) Dismissal/ridicule of the consequences of not enforcing the 1991 cease fire terms (formal objections about UN authorization aren’t likely to be even considered by future dictators who want to violate agreements that are de-facto with the US);

3) Related to #2, the notion that some tight tie to 9-11 is required for justification. As I’ve mentioned before, 9-11 is not even needed to justify the current action. Paleos could leverage that fact to limit its expansion, because otherwise there is likely to be a neocon bait-and-switch on the next set of bombs-for-democracy they want to drop.

A principled anti-war position has to deal with these issues, not dismiss or ridicule them. Otherwise, as I said, the neocons get to write all the rules.

Mitchell Young writes:
“…(if Matt wants vile, both sides can play)…”

I really should clarify something. It is already clear that liberals will play dirty (and not think of themselves as playing dirty while they are doing it, because for a liberal virtue IS liberalism). Furthermore, a neocon is just one particular form of liberal. That isn’t news. The only reason I am having this discussion at all is because I respect paleos and think we would be better off if paleos turned the gun away from their own temple and pointed it elsewhere.

“I also suspect that they would say the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Does their agreement with the nature of the suns movement somehow taint the truth of the matter?” — F.Salzer

Except we are not talking about the sun’s movement but issues vital to the national security of America. And providing a platform for anti-American left wingers such as Mailer to rant, as Buchanan’s American Conservative mag recently did, is a betrayal of everything conservative’s are supposed to stand for. If the paleo-right wants to make an alliance with the anti-American left on this issue, then they forfeit the right to be considered conservative patriots.

“But more to the pointe, please explain the contradiction, since the article’s intent is to prove the US are imperialistic, not to deny what is known about Islam.”

The issue of “imperialism” is a false one. Accusing America of being imperialistic is like accusing human beings of breathing air. The history of the world is the history of competing imperialisms. This is as true now as it was two or three thousand years ago. Every great civilisation has been an imperial power. Islam is an imperialist religion, as is Christianity. Any religion that is universalist in intent (as with the Great Commission of the Gospel) is imperialist. Imperialism then is a fact of human existence. Rather than argue about wether America’s actions and intents are imperialist or not, a far better question to be asking is who’s imperialism do we want to win? Islam’s or America’s and the Christian West’s?

Two years ago I was a strong proponent of plaeo-conservative isolationism. But since Sept.11 I, like many American’s, have been undergoing a personal revolution in my thinking, and while there may be some issues that I disagree with, such as immigration, I am increasingly coming to the point of view that on many issues of defense and foriegn policy, the neocon’s are right.

““Robust defense of the west” is an interesting phrase, please explain what you mean by it.”

In concrete terms this means for me:

1. The cessation of mass immigration policies in the West (by the West I mean Europe and the Anglo-sphere)

2. Recognition that Islam is the historic enemy of the Christian West.

3. Total war against Islamic terrorist organisations and the states that support them.

“One week I’m a raving nazi genocidal anti-semite” — Matt

If your refering to our debate, I certainly never accused you personally of being any such thing, but simply made the obvious (to me at least) link between medieval Catholic attitudes to the Jewish people and the Nazi’s. However if you gained the impression that I was accusing you of such attitudes then you have my apology. I do not consider most Catholics today to be anti-semites at all, and I give the current Pope credit for doing a great deal to confront the Roman churche’s past and to make right it’s relationship with God’s first chosen.

Shawn:
“If your refering to our debate, I certainly never accused you personally of being any such thing, …”

Actually I wasn’t, so no apology is necessary; and it is gentlemanly of Shawn to offer it. Some time back a commenter named Sandy specifically said I was personally a Nazi anti-semite in a different context.

Shawn wrote:

“And providing a platform for anti-American left wingers such as Mailer to rant, as Buchanan’s American Conservative mag recently did, is a betrayal of everything conservatives are supposed to stand for. If the paleo-right wants to make an alliance with the anti-American left on this issue, then they forfeit the right to be considered conservative patriots.”

Amen, brother.

Matt,

Although your post (Feb.14 10:37am) leaves me in doubt as to what you mean by “principled”, I have never the less put together a short list of links which don’t ignore Islam WMD etc.

The Future Freedom Foundation has a number of good articles:
http://www.fff.org/issues/foreignpolicy.asp
http://www.fff.org/issues/terrorism.asp
http://www.fff.org/issues/iraq.asp

Chronicles is always good, although many of the best articles are only available in the hard copy magazine.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/ChroniclesExtra.htm

If you are looking for a possible, WMD-terrorism connection, how about our ally, Pakistan? They have, nukes, al Quaida, and an unstable & rather unpleasant government. And have a track record of war with India. Or if you want a country who is funding terrorism which has attacked the US, how about our ally, Saudi Arabia? Or if we want to go after a country which is just plain vile, how about our ally, Kuwait? Why don’t we attack them?

And as I said before, if there was clear proof of intention that another country was going to attack the United States, they would have the right to defend themselves, just as any other country has the right to self defense against an aggressor. But without such proof, no, the US could not invade as a means of defense. Just the same as, if your next door neighbor is a bit unstable and a gun lover, doesn’t give you the right to go over to his house and shoot him without greater provocation.

But Iraq is not making hostile acts towards the US, and has very limited capacity to attack the US, and Iraq is the last country on earth that would attack the US, because it would mean certain destruction to itself. Which is proven by their not attacking us, in spite of our continuously bombing their country and killing their women & children. Saddam Hussein may be many things, but suicidal is not one of them.

As to your explanation of aggressive and assertive rights, they are nothing more than a corruption of a properly understood and developed doctrine. Just as socialism is a corruption. Locke may be in need of nuance and qualification, but I have never understood him to express rights in the ‘aggressive’ and ‘assertive’ manner you imply. Please give examples.

F. Salzer:
“Locke may be in need of nuance and qualification, but I have never understood him to express rights in the ‘aggressive’ and ‘assertive’ manner you imply. Please give examples.”

The fundamental Lockean view of property as I understand it is that man encounters nature, modifies it to add value, and it thereby becomes his property. It is through an assertive act of his will that man self-creates a particular right to a particular piece of property, and that right means that he can, for example, assertively kill intransigent trespassers who violate that right. This contrasts quite dramatically with the traditional view of even our very lives as gifts from God.

Now one might argue that the early Locke divorced from his later voluntarism is more consistent with the traditional view. All that shows is that like all liberals Locke was inconsistent, though.

Interestingly, property as gift from God is far more secure on the one hand, and conducive to charity on the other, than the Lockean assertion-of-will view. A gift is still very much mine, and repelling the trespasser is still very much my perogative (and in fact far more so since I own because what I own is God’s gift to me); but because it is a gift rather than a self-willed entitlement it calls me directly to be giving myself.

The notion that the concept of “rights” was at some point in the past free from corruption, and has been subsequently corrupted by outside forces, is wrong in my view. The seeds of entitlement rights are there to be seen in Locke; and again, my assertion isn’t that a true construction of right-speak is logically impossible but rather that in practice rights-speak always leads to self-assertion and a failure to realize that the good, the true, and the beautiful are God’s gifts to us.

F. Salzer:
“Just the same as, if your next door neighbor is a bit unstable and a gun lover, doesn’t give you the right to go over to his house and shoot him without greater provocation.”

This analogy is quite wrong, though. Iraq actually went over to his next door neighbor’s houses and killed many of them. These neighbors were our friends under treaty and we went to their aid. We stopped short of killing Hussein specifically because he agreed to certian terms. He has violated those terms. We were under no obligation to offer him those terms in the first place, and we are now perfectly justified in finishing him off as a completion of that initial defensive action. Furthermore, if we don’t do so, then we will not be able to make peacable settlements in the future because everyone will know that they can just be violated with impunity. Our only choice will be wars of utter annihilation, with no possibility of credible cease-fire agreements. Once all of that is established, add in the fact that Hussein attempted to assassinate one of our former presidents (which act in itself is enough to invite utter annihilation). Then add on top of that the fact that 9-11 raised our awareness of a developing WMD-terrorism nexus.

The notion that there is no moral case for wiping Saddam Hussein off the map is ludicrous. I am still not convinced that the war is the right thing to do; but my concerns are specifically with internal US issues not the external justification. Paleos are absolutely right about the former and are self-discrediting on the latter.

One should notr forget that William Jefferson Clinton laid the groundwork for regime change in Iraq by overthrowing the sovereign government of Haiti and interfering with the sovereign rights of Yugoslavia in order to gain regime change in Serbia. Although the “global community” opposes America’s actions in Iraq, rank and file, our impending conquest of Iraq will only accelerate globalization, if not Pax Americana. How far can the Bush Administration be from allowing Ariel Sharon to be extradited to Brussels for war crimes ?

What could be better for Gaullists of the Buchanan and Sobran label in every land but the demise of NATO and the United Nations ? This Gotterdammerung of globalization can only lead international politics to where it naturally tends - to justice as the will of the stronger.

All opponents of war against Iraq protest - too much - for what is it worth to defend Saddam Hussein on the very principles that Saddam Hussein denies ? Are they not all blinded by their own hatred of what is best in mankind ? Have they not lowered themselves to the defense of what is bestial and small - and all in the name of principle ?

Better it is, I say, to accept the wages of empire. We Americans may well fail this time, and if we do not fail this time, there is always next time, for sic transit gloria mundi. But we shall try, once again, to bring the forth justice and peace that is unique in our land to another. May God bless our cause, and purify our desires, in this, the day of battle.

Mr. Riggs seems to be saying something interesting, but, with all due respect, I’m having a little trouble understanding exactly what he is saying. Could he clarify?

I’m saying that the “choices” propagated by the antiwar movement are more illusory than real, and that the Bush Administration has strong arguments from both the idealist and realist perspectives. I was reading a bit from Kissinger’s “Does America Need a Foreign Policy” and there are some very interesting lines in the beginning of that book which say, in effect, that the Left is too aggressive in the pursuit of the ideological component of foreign policy, and the Right is too prone to use force in the absence of ideals. Kissinger goes on to say that the correct policy is a balance of idealism and coercion, and I contend that the Bush II policies are commendable in exactly this way. My great criticism of the Reagan foreign policy is that the Reagan Administration’s bark was always worse than its bite - but the Bush presidencies bite speak louder than they have barked.