What Wars Achieve

While Libertarians may be the foes of progressives when it comes to how much the government should should help it's citizens they are certainly allies in the anti war effort. Harry Browne was the Libertarian candidate for president in 1996 and 2000. His recent piece, What Wars Achieve, sounds like something that could have come out of a Quaker Think Tank.

Woodrow Wilson dragged America into a war that was of no concern to the U.S. – because he had the big idea that he could make the world safe for democracy and self-determination. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, World War I took the lives of 21 million people (including 53,000 Americans). And I defy anyone to point to a single benefit that would justify the death of even one person. In fact, "self-determination" was one of the war's losers – as millions of people were herded against their will into countries where they didn’t even speak the language.

Franklin D. Roosevelt manipulated the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor so that Americans would support going to war – because Roosevelt had the big idea that he could bestow the Four Freedoms on the world. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, World War II cost the lives of at least 20 million people (including 292,000 Americans). And it caused half of Europe and all of China to become prisoners of the Communists.

Although I have heard before that Roosevelt "manipulated" the Japanese at the start of WWII I have never seen any evidence to back that up.

The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the bombing of Libya, the invasions of Cuba, Grenada, and Panama, the Marines in Lebanon, the Gulf War, the bombing of Serbia, and the dozens of other military adventures and intrigues of the U.S. government since World War II repeat over and over the same pattern – little Napoleons trying to implement their big ideas by playing God with the lives of other people, leaving millions dead and millions more homeless. And no demonstrable benefit from any of it.

I think there is more evidence that the Bush I administration manipulated Saddam Hussein into invading Kuwait to give them an excuse to get rid of a puppet who had cut his strings.

So now we have another tinhorn cowboy in the White House who has the big (but not original) idea that he’s going to solve the thousand-year-old problems in the Middle East. It may cost a few lives but "freedom is always worth it" (so long as it’s other people’s lives that are sacrificed).

It’s doubtful that he’s ever paid any attention to the futility associated with previous wars. And why should he? He has the power to go to war, so why not give it a try? If it doesn’t work out as he promised, he can always change the rationale for going to war. And there will always be an army of publicists in the press, radio, and television to support him – whatever happens.

While Iraqis are dying, homes are destroyed, electricity and water supplies are interrupted, the cowboy is in Brussels with Jacques Chirac dining on lobster risotto with truffle sauce and filet of beef with Bordelaise sauce, discussing the future of other people’s lives (at least the future for those people who aren't killed in the process).

I can't really argue with anything there, that seems to sum the situation up pretty well although I do believe he is ignoring the economic imperialism that's at work as well.

Leaders seem to need a Crusade to verify their power. Mr Browne concludes with this:

If liberty-loving people ever again gain control of the U.S. government, we must bind down future Presidents with new chains for the Constitution – depriving the politicians of the power to commit the mayhem that has been perpetrated by 13 of the last 16 Presidents.

I don't have much hope that we will ever see that. I suspect a majority of the American people are just as "macho" as their leaders.