Edwin Locke asks us to give real meaning to Veterans Day.
The best way we can honor our veterans and give real meaning to Veterans Day – aside from ceremonies honoring their past and present dedication and bravery – is to promise that we will go to war only when America’s interests as a free nation are threatened.The events of 9/11 have made it abundantly clear that there exist Moslem fanatics whose goal is to destroy our country and the values it stands for. It is clearly in our self-interest to use the full power of our military might to destroy those who would destroy us.
Right on Dr. Locke. On this Veterans Day, not only should we proudly uphold the principles of freedom and individual rights on which this country was founded, but we should also proclaim that we should only act militarily in our own self -interest. Bring our military home from places such as Liberia, Bosnia, Kosovo, etc. Most importantly, send our forces into places such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and North Korea to rid the world of these enemies of freedom and individual rights.
Hello - I stumbled across your blog looking through a blog-ring, and all I can say is Wow - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and North Korea? You talk on here about how we need to take action to avoid World War III, then instruct our government to attack five countries?? If that’s not World War III, I don’t want to know what is. Even if you don’t mean to attack all these countries as once (since as Iraq has shown, regime change requires long-term committment of large numbers of troops, and we don’t have the numbers to occupy several deveated countries), are you aware of the manpower and funds it would require to take on a country like Pakistan or North Korea? If I understand Rand correctly, Objectivists oppose things like higher taxes and military conscription - yet what you’re advocating would require huge drafts and billions of taxpayer dollars. Pre-emptive war strikes on nuclear powers -which t two nations on your hitlist are, and the other three may become by the time we get our military out of Iraq - would likely result in brutal counterstrikes, crippling our armies.
Moreover, while N. Korea and Iran do pose serious threats to American security, the other three certaintly aren’t large enough problems to warrant even considering unprovoked military action. Syria is a thorn in our side in Iraq, Saudi Arabia has their own problems with terrorism and is beginning to crack down, and Pakistan is locked in a struggle with India that doesn’t concern us. You call yourself rational, but have no concept of the reality of military combat and international relations. Call me a cowardly liberal, an irrational altruist, or a immoral anti-american pacifist, but the fact remains - our problems won’t be solved by constant war. Even if we had an unlimited supply of money and military volunteers - which anyone who claims to be rational must realize we do not - what would we accomplish by fighting these wars? As in Iraq, we’ll create greater problems, and chances are we’ll do just as little for American security as we’ve done there (since we’ve found no WMD’s and actually swelled the ranks of terrorist organizations everywhere). For example, fighting Iran would neutralize one threat, only to spread our military thinner and embolden our enemies.
We need to focus military action defeating groups like Al-queda, not destroying every regime we deem “enemies of freedom and individual rights.” To borrow a favorite phrase of yours, that’s not in our self-interest as a nation. Fortifying our borders through defense systems and homeland security measures IS. It’s neither rational nor moral to incite mass death, especially of Americans, when there are alternatives to war - alternatives you refuse to consider, because they don’t fit your strict black-and-white moral system. The UN and EU have already made progress on curtailing Iran’s nuclear program, but you’ll deny it and claim they’re lying, because you’ve branded them as evil without any real evidence save accusations you read in Ayn Rand Institute editorials. To be truly rational, truly Objective, you have to look at reality without these biases - and realize, among other errors, the grand contradiction of trying to prevent world war III by starting it.
Comment by CZ 11/13/2003 @ 1:50 am
Steve your youthful enthusiasm and passion are getting the best of you man.
If you really want to just bring this “threat” to an end all you have to is carpet bomb Mecca during the Haj. This would not only destroy the most holy site in the Islamic world but insure that the United States would bring all the members of the second largest religion in world down on us (including the Muslims in this country).
Then you could just commit a little genocide and get rid of all these, how did say it. . ."enemies of freedom and individual rights.”
Would you be enlisting soon to take the fight to enemy?
Edwin Locke is paying lip service to political claptrap. It does not honor the men and women dead and dying in Iraq, nor those who have served and died in the past.
Unwrap yourself from within the flag, take off your rose-colored glasses and settle into reality a bit more. Your naivete’ is showing.
Comment by 11/15/2003 @ 12:07 am
The two prior replies to your post I find interesting and perhaps well-meaning, but flawed. There are nations and religions that would like nothing more than our demise. As a replacement they offer butchery and mysticism in the forms of statism and islamic fundamentalism or the combination. The flag represents an idea, Swift, and it matters not if you understand that, or how one “views” it.
Regards,
Markus
Comment by 11/16/2003 @ 6:52 pm
Markus…
“There are nations and religions that would like nothing more than our demise.”
Problem is, Markus, that these nations and religions are FAR from monolithic, and it is immorral, illogical, impractical, and fiscally irresponsible to treat them as such.
Comment by 11/16/2003 @ 7:03 pm
Markus - how does one determine that an entire “religion” wants one’s demise? Is a religion a sentient being now? It’s not - it’s merely a creed, and you can’t fight a military battle against it. In urging us to try to do this, you’re advocating genocide. You want us to exterminate all practitioners of a religion because some of its proponents want us dead. What other way would there be to end the “threat” of that religion than to kill all its faithful, and outlaw its practice?
Sound insane? Indeed, especially since you Objectivists are supposed to support the sanctity of individual life and freedom of choice in religion. So, rather than resorting to the sword, why not look at the reasons Muslims hate us? These include immoral US foreign policy actions such as supporting (at various times) tyrannical governments like Saudi Arabia and Iraq, building military bases on Muslim lands, and of course supporting Israel even when they bomb refugee camps and build a fence right over Palestinian farmer’s homes, all the while paying lip service to empty rhetoric like the road map. Maybe we can stop behaving this way, learn to respect the individual rights of people besides Americans. Military action is useful and moral against Bin Laden and al-Queda, Hamas, and other groups who are using and planning violence. But merely “wanting our demise” isn’t any justification for our taking military action against anyone, let alone an entire religion or culture - especially when this desire is borne of a combination of legitimate injustices our government committed, and the ignorance of people living under oppressive regimes and cultural establishments that indoctrinate them to believe we’re evil.
Comment by CZ 11/16/2003 @ 10:17 pm
And before you give me the “Israel is moral” argument, read this: http://www.ummah.com/worldaffairs/viewcafeature1.php?cafid=75&caTopicID=6
It should burst your Ayn Rand Institute bubble nicely. And if you want to tell me this is biased, well, I say the same about the A.R.I. and Jerusalem Post articles you quote!
Comment by CZ 11/16/2003 @ 10:24 pm
I see your points Aaron and CZ but I would suggest to you that we have an alternative other than isolationism. We can and should target “states” that support directly or indirectly our enemies, religious or otherwise, because we are no longer in an environment where a few hundred fanatics cannot threaten us. I argue that “defense” is one of the proper functions of our government (even if part of the rest is corrupt - and it is). And to CZ: ignorance is not a moral excuse, except if you are a follower of a fundamentalist strain of Islam or have been brainwashed by some statist institution? I know, the USA created all of them. And true Islam is not violent. By the way, freedom of religion is not something I would consider an objectivist position in and of itself.
Feel free to contact me off-line if this is getting to far off topic.
Regards,
Markus
Comment by 11/17/2003 @ 1:20 am
Defense is a proper function of government, I agree. (I’m not the Michael Moore clone you probably think I am - I would classify myself as the all-too-rare species of left-leaning Libertarian, although the divisive, increasingly heavy-handed policies of Bush and other neoconservatives have pushed many Libertarians closer to the left.)
But targeting states is costly and doesn’t really eliminate the threat posed by organizations like al-Queda. If a certain state attacks us, self-defense is a must. But pre-emptive military action against countries we SUSPECT of harboring intentions to harm us is the initiation of force on our part, which an Objectivist must agree is the height of immorality.
And yes, ignorance is an excuse for immoral views when you have no access to objective media, are indoctrinated from birth with those views, and are faced with legitimate stimuli that corroborate them (i.e., America’s support for Israel even in light of their trampling the Palestinians’ individual rights would seem like pretty good evidence that the US is evil, if you were a palestinian whose 5-year old son had been blown up in an Israeli raid, or who had been fenced out of his meager farm by the Israeli military, etc). You simply can’t judge these people from your American perspective. They don’t have the freedoms we have here, their culture discourages questioning, and their experiences show them what terrible things our government is capable of. (supporting Iraq and Saudi Arabia? come on.) Once again, you’ll say that’s no moral excuse, but the fact remains that you are only extrapolating. You can’t say for sure until you’ve been in that situation. I contend only a vast minority of people, brought up in an environment like Palestine, would ever stop and say, “You know, the USA isn’t that bad!” Especially since our country has strayed so far from its original, moral founding principles that it’s hard for ANYONE to say we’re still within the bounds of morality half the time.
And how is freedom of religion not an Objectivist position? I’m sure the blogger here, Steve, would agree that Objectivism guarantees freedom of religion as long as the religion is practiced non-violently. And yes, Islam can be practiced nonviolently. There are many American muslims whose moral existences prove this. And what about the Iranian Muslims struggling against their theocracy for the cause of individual rights?
Comment by CZ 11/17/2003 @ 1:03 pm
CZ,
Perhaps you have not read my earlier writing. On many occasions, I have stated that the enemy that the United States is facing is NOT terrorism, but rather, Islamic fundamentalism. Terrorism is merely the means by which our enemies are attempting to inflict harm upon us.
The key mistake made by the Bush administration, in my opinion, has been the mistaking of our enemy as a group of isolated criminals who do not receive moral, monetary, or military support from certain states. However, the opposite is true. If you take a look at the statements made by leaders of Al-Qaeda such as Osama Bin Laden, and the statements of other Middle Eastern terrorist organizations, one will see that a primary thread that runs through all of them is their desire to see America destroyed and their desire to see Islamic fundamentalism spread. The critical idea that I put forth (as do many Objectivsits), is that this view is not just some isolated viewpoint but rather is entrenched and supported by the states of numerous Middle Eastern countries.
It is not the case that we suspect such states of terrorist ties, but rather, we know for a fact that these countries support terrorism. Also, it is not the case that we suspect certain states to be dominated by Islamic fundamentalism, but rather, we know for a fact that this is the case. Browse my blog and look for my post concerning the fact that Saudi Arabia is the primary financier of Hamas. Look for the fact that coutries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc., place their citizens under strict Islamic law (such laws being the result of Islamic fundamentalist influence).
Therefore, the reason why I advocate the overthrow of these states is because of the fact that they are the primary supporters of Islamic fundamentalism. Terrorists are merely the soldiers of Islamic fundamentalism, these Middle Eastern states constitute the fundamental base by which their soldiers get support. Would you advocate, in WWII, that the U.S. attempt to pick off Japanese fighter pilots but leave the source of such soldiers entact? In fact, would you advocate that policy and say that the U.S. should negotiate with the source of such attacks, Japan?
As to the comment about religion, every individual has the right to choose their own religion. However, no individual has the right to force their religion on others. It is my opinion that in Middle Eastern states, forcing religion on others constitutes one of the primary purposes of government (see Iran for example), and this is an immoral policy. I will clearly admit that Israel has such problems with its government as well. However, I would make the claim that Israel does it to a lesser extent, and that Israel has the right to defend itself against terrorist attacks.
Comment by 11/17/2003 @ 1:17 pm
“enemy that the United States is facing is NOT terrorism, but rather, Islamic fundamentalism."Steve.
1. Islamic Fundamentalism is only the group de jour that is committing terrorism… the rapid development of Information technology is one of many factors that ensures that terrorism is a means that many people will use to acheive political ends. Tommorow it could be luddite environmentalists, and the day after it could be anti-american european leftist groups…
2.BTW Most Terrorist attacks on American soil have been by Christian
Comment by 11/17/2003 @ 3:04 pm