Issues 24: Dance with the One that Brought You -OR- Fight your own Wars!

I have spoken before about the dangers of an interventionist foreign policy. In “Issues 19: India, Pakistan, and... Libertarianism?” I discussed the damage that is being cause by one nation defining the borders of another without regard to preference, as well as the violence that has been unleashed against multiple targets so that those in power can maintain tight-fisted control of the situation. These in turn are exacerbated, according to some, by yet another problem caused by intervention—third party war-fighting.

http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-us-policies-to-be-blamed-for-paks-double-game/20110618.htm

The above article explains how the US supported Pakistan through the Cold War while supporting the strategic containment of communism. We were in essence trying to fight a war without actually fighting one, but enabling others to do so for us. Since then, those others have decided their goals do not match with ours. In return they have continued to support us enough to keep receiving aid, but have used previous help and continue to use recurring help to foster their own agenda, which is harmful to ours.

For this, how can we blame them? They are looking after their own good. The abhorrence of the acts come from the duplicity therein, not from the fact that another country is acting self-interestedly. But the issue is allowed to continue while the US uses third parties to help fight our own wars.

I am of the firm belief that anything worth doing is worth doing well, in the open, and with pride. For this reason alone I would ask the United States to fight her own wars. However, if that is not enough for some, then look at the consequences of what happens when we ask and enable others to do so for us. It never seems to turn out well in the end. We look back with disdain on our actions, such as the containment of a system that collapsed anyway, but never seem to learn. Each threat is new and somehow different from those that came before, making the action different enough this time to not be considered a mistake.

An alternative—non-intervention with a weak military—is equally disdained because we see what happens when a country must rely on the US for military support. The alternative to both of these, then, libertarian non-intervention policies with a strong military capable and willing to defend the country, seems the best option. Experience tells us this over and over again, yet we are loathe to loosen our own control over situations we do not like.

This is a difficult thing to do, though. Human nature would tempt any President to use a strong military to shape the world into one that he liked. That is why I only feel I can trust a President who believes in non-intervention, but why it is even more crucial for Congress to be strong and check the President. This happens so little in our current party-based politics that the remaining answer to solve all of these problems remains a strong military guided by a non-interventionist libertarian.

Issues 23: President Obama's Love of Covert Power

I know it has been a long time since I have written here (over 2 weeks, according to these dates).  While I take the weekend to refamiliarize myself with current events and the outside world, please accept this discussion on covert power and the subsequent philosophical debate on the nature of authority and responsibility.

(covert picture not posted for security reasons)

Slow Dance: Obama’s Romance with the CIA

The President, according to this article, is a big fan of covert hard power. This is one thing that I agree with him about. If your hands are tied by the lack of a declaration of war, the necessity to respect national sovereignty, the constant release of those you capture, and the constant threat to your country by a group of people sworn to bring about your destruction; then kill them covertly.

This covert campaign is essential to the War on Terror, which is in itself essential to protecting America. While it may or may not be an existential sort of threat, it is a very real one that has been killing innocent Americans for decades. Mr. President, I applaud your approach.

That said, there is also a cautionary note deserved. A democracy is not supposed to be covert. A government of the people and by the people cannot be covert. Libertarian principles can be ripped apart quickly by one greedy man with covert power. Is the President entirely good-minded in this use of power? It is necessary to prosecute the type of war we are fighting, but it is also very handy for one who wants to violently affect the world while seeming peaceful at home and in the media.

This is why we have checks and balances and why it is imperative that they operate flawlessly. A President using covert powers under the watchful eye of Congressional committees in prosecution of a declared war is a very powerful tool. A President doing the same without oversight, with a weak Congress that will not declare the wars they fight and will not even hold OVERT military actions within Constitutional and legal bounds is truly frightening. If you have wondered why I am so insistent on declaring war to use military force and “checks and balances” being used properly, especially in relation to the application of violence, then this gives you a window into that rationale.

Issues 22: A War on Terror?

Hizbul Mujahideen chief: Pakistan allows terror group to run 'hundreds of training camps'

I would like to preface this post by saying that ideas contained herein are still very much in developmental stages, indeed in their infancy. I have not discussed them at length with anyone and welcome discussion to hone or change them.

The friend of my enemy is my enemy… Although I support non-intervention for non-direct threats to the US, once an attack has been made and the decision to wage war has been approved, I support only complete warfare with the goal of unconditional surrender of the offending nation (or similar ends for non-state actors). Terrorism itself has changed how we can prosecute a war. Being attacked by Japan, declaring war on the nation, and waging that war until unconditional surrender has been achieved—that is relatively easy. Being attacked by a group that is not associated with a state is more difficult. What do you declare war against? Who do you attack? What sovereignty do you respect and whose do you trample? These are very difficult questions which have been answered, to the best of my knowledge, by authorizing the use of military force against certain stated objectives. This is similar to but legally different from declaring war.

My elementary analysis of the proper method of executing existing policies tries to mirror the current laws of war. First, declare war against an organization (i.e. al-Qaeda). Second, just as the law of war permits you to kill any member of an opposing military whether they are fighting you at the moment or not, armed or not, in uniform or not; chase and kill or capture any avowed member of that group. Third, treat “detainees” as POWs (do not release them early, do not try them, just hold them away from conflict until the war is over). Finally, assess the individual circumstances surrounding nations interacting with the non-state group. For instance, if firm evidence proves that a state is providing active support to the group with which you are at war, they lose their claim of neutrality.

As I said before, this is similar to what we are currently doing, but different enough to raise issues. Two of the most obvious are detainees and nations supporting terrorism. In my plan detainees would be legitimate prisoners of war, with all the legal implications. Nations sponsoring terrorism would lose their claim of neutrality in the situation and be legitimate targets for attack. That does not mean that every one should be attacked, and I am not using this to say that we attack Pakistan now, as the article and this comment may lead some to believe. We are applying diplomatic pressure at the moment, which may be the best option given the intelligence desired endstates. However, the option should not be far off the table.

This is a complex issue and raises many more questions. What if the member of the group is a citizen of the US? Can you try POWs for war crimes rather than releasing them at the end of the war? How do you determine the level of support from a nation required before declaring them part of the enemy? These are all difficult, but the disheartening problem is that we are not even at the point to deal with them yet. Congress has allowed the President to use force without declaring war against either a state or an organization. Consequently, we cannot treat captured combatants as POWs. They then are released and kill more Americans. We cannot (or have not) used the full power of our national security institutions against even those who help our enemies. There are very ambiguous questions involved in fighting non-state organizations, but to be able to address them properly, we first need to fix the basic functioning of our own governmental institutions.

Issues 5: Egypt

            In my discussion of the situation in Tunisia, I made the point that American interests and assistance will be less effective than otherwise possible due to our reputation for foreign intervention.  In making the same point now but in reference to a new situation, I am simultaneously trying to drive home the point and showcase the validity of a prediction through current events.  In another Economist article covering Egypt, The Battle of Cairo is Over, or is It?, the online journal discusses possible coming change.  The real telling part is below, in the comments.  The mistrust of America and American intentions are evident.  Even if our previous intervention and aid would have been the right thing to do, which I contend it was not, it is certainly coming back in an unexpected and unwanted way.

Issues 1: Tunisia and Foreign Policy

     When I discuss libertarianism in this blog, I am not referring to a political party, but a principled system of beliefs. As such, the libertarian ideal does not stop at the water’s edge, focusing solely on individual liberty in domestic policy. The ideas also apply to international relations and how a country treats its neighbors. A libertarian society is against both the initiation of force and unrequested foreign intervention, recognizing that the military exists as a defense mechanism, not an instrument of willy-nilly international politics. As a supreme executive, I would not in any way use the military or my political clout to impose my will or ideas on sovereign nations, so long as they are respecting my nation’s sovereignty as well. America’s power is neither a mandate nor an excuse to act as a world police force—in a world of sovereign nations, no political body has the authority to impose that on an unwilling nation.
     The happenings in Tunisia recently give a nice case study on why the above philosophy holds sound for international relations. The Tunisian people, tired of the conditions of their current government, worked to overthrow that government. As John Locke proclaims and the Declaration of Independence paraphrases, the people will inevitably “put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the end for which government was at first erected.” If these great thinkers and the current of world events are to be believed, then military intervention is not necessary to spread democracy—it will arise spontaneously when the people deem the reward outweighs the sacrifices of revolution.

     Tunisia is now at an important crossroads. The government that arises from this distress could be a model for the region, or a despot replacing another. However, American influence in the process will be significantly less than what it could be due in large part to our reputation in the world right now. An Economist article discusses opinions on Tunisia in the Arab press. Most do not mention America, but one can tell that there is dissatisfaction with what America has already done in the region (propping up certain governments) which will, in conjunction with the ongoing struggles in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, limit the amount of help and involvement that people are willing to ask from America (read this article about Pakistan for further evidence of our foreign policy hindering our desired foreign outcomes). If America is seen as too pushy, then people will not trust us to deliver only the assistance requested without going the extra step to impose additional views.
     Not only has the past half-century of American interventionist foreign policy violated principles of Sovereignty and worked us to a point where we are unable to render the help when it is most needed, it goes against the principles that most often predict success. Unrequested intervention in a nation to change government is essentially a fight between two powers both claiming to be legitimate for different reasons. Even if this does not directly devolve into an insurgency, it bears many of the same traits and is likely to in the future.
     In a paper called Victory Has a Thousand Fathers, The Small Wars Journal discusses evidence about what makes for successful counterinsurgency (COIN). Dividing many COIN practices into good and bad, it is easy to see that a foreign government coming to impose a regime change in a country immediately falls prey to many of the bad practices. This is not impossible to overcome, but is difficult. This is further complicated (to put it mildly) if America finds itself trying to “help governments that will not help themselves.” One of the surest ways to know that people are willing to help themselves is to only respond to calls for assistance to causes that have already started to make progress rather than trying to build them from the ground.
     It is easy to see and completely understandable how America’s recent history of foreign policy has degraded rather than strengthened our ability to influence the world. While the most important influence should be a sterling example that the rest of the world can follow or not as they desire, we are unable to do this because of the largely correct perception of American pushiness and cultural insensitivity. A non-intervening state that can be a light of freedom in the world would inspire more events like the one happening in Tunisia. With an unblemished record of libertarian respect for national sovereignty and cultural awareness, America would be much more likely to be not only welcome, but an invited participant in designing a better future. This only holds more true as communication becomes faster and more accessible through technology such as the internet.
     This is not a Republican or Democrat issue, since both parties have made largely similar blunders. Americans understand this, but I believe that most do not see an alternative between trading back and forth between Democratic missteps and Republican ones. A theory of liberty would satisfy many involved parties, increase America’s status and influence in the world, and yield more favorable foreign policy results. While it is important to note that the ends do not justify the means in forming actionable policy, the fact that the core principles of the libertarian philosophy can be uncompromisingly applied in this situation and still predict positive results speaks to the depth and truth of the ideals here espoused.