Libertarian philosophy and the Irag war

I was reading this

How do “pure” Libertarians answer Luke 10:29 “… who is my neighbor ?”. When party A initiates force against party B, what does C need to come to the aide of B? That B also be a Libertarian? Surely not. That B and C have concluded some mutual defense agreement? How about ‘that B would have agreed to a mutual defenese agreement with C if he were not prevented from doing so by the same A that rules B in a tyrannical fashion’, is that good enough? That is the analogous situation in Iraq.

Personally, I would have much preferred policies that let the poor people in Iraq and elsewhere in the world immigrate to a place where they could be free. Why would there need to be a war in North Korea if there were no soldiers? If all the farmers had left? Who would come be a guest worker for that regime? The place would be a freezing ghost town.

Currently, this is not politically possible. Freeing the people of Iraq in situ, even if not to a perfect new political order, merely from Hussein, seems to be the next-best solution.

The consent of B.

However, if B, for example is a battered wife in a domestic abuse situation - and A is a husband inflicting the abuse - what does C need to come to the aide of B, if in this example that C is the local police?

Under this scenario, I would argue that C would need the consent, not of B (the battered wife) but rather society as a whole.

Analoguously then, if A is Saddam’s regime, and B is the beleaguered people of Iraq, and C represents the “outside world” - what does C require to come to the aide of B?

This, I feel is the crux of the matter… no-one can reasonably argue that the poor souls of Iraq, under the dreadful circumstances of the last 20 years (inclusive of the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War One, and the economic sanctions which were cynically abused by Saddam to paint himself in a better light) - well no-one could reasonably opine that those poor souls don’t at least deserve some form of salvation…

However, it could well be argued that perhaps President Bush chose not to persue this line of reasoning because he felt it would not stand the scrutiny of world opinion - and that instead, he felt that the tactic of presenting Saddam as being an “external threat” was an easier threat to sell.

Me, personally? In my heart of hearts, and bear in mind this is only hindsight, but I would have preferred that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair had persued the more noble option of providing salvation to the Iraqi people and never to have mentioned the WMD and Al-Quaida angles.

Possibly, under this scenario, the “cause” might have had far greater support in the region - given that Saddam seems to be universally pillaried as a fascist thug throughout the Arabic world.

Certainly, such a tactic might have had at least Iran speaking more forcefully and favourably on the matter. At some point, if the campaign had been sufficiently persistent - over say, an 18 month period - either a de facto agreeance might have been reached in the MENA countries to allow the invasion - and/or a diplomatic front might have been created amongst the Arabic countries (as well as Iran) to force Saddam and his regime to step down.

After all - given time, the lack of action by the surrounding region (in the face of an inarguable case to provide salvation to the Iraqi people) would have resulted in some countries seemingly being seen to be quite heartless towards a neighbour.

The Libertarian Party USA website www.lp.org gives arguments on why this war should not be fought.

Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden are not allies at all. Hussain, how brutal he is, rules in a secular society. Case in point, Tariq Aziz is a Catholic, and there is a small Jewish community in Baghdad. This is not to say that there is religious freedom in Iraq, but there is diversity. Osama’s vision does not allow this at all. Al Queda wants and demands a medieval interpretation of Islam, and that Islam should be the only faith represented, an ultra conservative brand found in Afghanistan.

Hussain did not know about 9/11. Al Queda is a threat to his regime, not a compliment.

What was wrong with the UN, and what it is doing? The world managed 12 years of negotiation and sanctions to play in Iraq, why now the war?

I am going to start a new thread…