Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time

Let's put this meme to bed:

Wrong war? That one defensive war is fought overtly while other defensive wars remain covert does not render it incorrect.

Wrong place? The geographic area under control of the dictatorship being overthrown is exactly the right place to engage it in warfare.

Wrong time? Twelve years ago would have been better, but having waited that long in no way justifies delaying another day longer than required to prepare for victory.

I support George W Bush as the current and future president of the United States not because he possesses moral clarity, but because his hodgepodge misintegrated philosophy at least includes some elements of moral clarity. He acknowledges the existence of right and wrong, although he can't explain them succinctly. None of his presidential opponents meet even this low standard. They discard not only the concept of right and wrong (in favor of multiculturalism) but also consistency - with reality, or even with oneself.

One man who can explain right and wrong succinctly is Peter Schwartz, chairman of the board of the Ayn Rand Institute. Peter has a new book, 'The Foreign Policy of Self-Interest, A Moral Ideal for America.' (and here as well.) Among many principles and strategies discussed in the book is a justification for invading and overthrowing Saddam's Iraq. In short, "with regard to dictatorships generally, none has a claim to legitimacy. None has a right to exist." To this basic justification Schwartz adds the motive for risking American soldiers in battle because, "if the government in question has, or is actively seeking to acquire, the capacity to endanger the U.S., and has shown willingness to use it - then it is an objective threat and military action is warranted."

Schwartz rightly explains that all the other explanations and justifications were window dressing obviated by the suicidal philosophy of altruism.

"Freedom is the state of being free from the threat of force. Because of the potential danger from Hussein, Americans were less free while he wielded power. Had our political leaders concentrated on this fact, they would have been able to make a moral case for invading Iraq, on the grounds of self-defense. But properly implementing the right of self-defense depends upon upholding the justness of self-interest. And our officials were unable to do so. They felt a need to come up with altruistic reasons - a need to show that we were acting not for ourselves but for others, that we were relying not on our own judgment but on that of a conglomeration of nations. We entered Iraq shackled by that contradiction." p. 46

And we remain in Iraq, victors in the war but "losers" of "the peace," shackled by the same contradiction. And as time is wasted arguing whether it was right or wrong to "sacrifice over 1000 brave Americans" to make America safer or not safer and Iraqis free or not free, attention is distracted from further pursuit of America's self-defense.

Schwartz concludes the chapter by saying "the mustaches [on U.S. servicemen attempting to display 'respect for Iraqi culture'], the money [$540 million in rebuilding funds for Fallujah], the cease-fires [to achieve a 'negotiated settlement' with perpetrators of the brutal murders of four American civilians], the compromises [too many to list] - all such acts of appeasement cause the enemy to be brazen enough to attack us. They announce that our goal is to win the war not by destroying the opponents of freedom and of America - whether they are active fighters or sympathetic onlookers - but rather by persuading them that we share their concerns."

Posted by JohnGalt at October 6, 2004 01:42 PM