War as the health of the state
The events of September 11 have inspired two wars aimed at disrupting possible terrorist activities. Civil libertarians have alleged numerous abuses arising out of the conduct of the fight against terrorism. Some have called for impeachment — or at least a thorough investigation — of President Bush.
In all this it has been the judiciary that has defended individual rights, from its declaration that the military commissions set up at Guantanamo Bay were illegal, to its reaffirmation of the writ of habeas corpus. A narrower interpretation of the Constitution would arguably assist in preventing further questionable practices. But Congress must take some responsibility. A more forceful Congress is crucial in preventing unwarranted growth in Executive power.
Murray Rothbard argues that war is the lifeblood of governments, as it enables the expansion and abuse of power. He finds that in the twentieth century the “single most warlike, most interventionist, most imperialist government has been the United States”. Certainly, it is well documented that after beginning the century with small government, there has been a tremendous expansion in the role of government in America.
Rothbard suggests this is due to the immense “military-industrial complex” brought about by the World Wars and numerous other foreign conflicts. By this logic, foreign policy adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan has not just increased defence spending — the wars have also enabled Executive power to broaden in ways not envisioned by the founding fathers. A society where government is pervasive requires citizens to deal with layers of bureaucracy, opening up opportunities for corruption and misuse of administrative power.
The expansion of presidential power in recent times can be linked to fear. The events of September 11 were particularly shocking to Americans, for it constituted a direct attack on the homeland. While American law enforcement had encountered al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s, previous attacks were not on the same scale of destruction. Yet while the spur to aggressive action is understandable, the ends do not necessarily justify the means.
A good book to read is one titled “War and the rise of the State”. This graphically details how Democracy and inclusive states go hand in hand, and how wars give more power to the center. The main argument is that governments start allocating more and more resources to win the war. When this includes conscription (the side with the biggest army should win), governments offer the bargain of having a hand in the running of the state in return for more power over citizens. Wars and states go together. When the American colonies rebelled against a distant master, they ended up with a nearby central government with powers of resumption for an ill-defined ‘common’ good.
I think you are right Sukrit.
The war in Afghanistan is totally justifiable if not partly caused by ill directed promises in the past, and some wholly unjustified greviances of bin Laden.
But the end does not justify the means - you’re absolutely right. Forgetting civil lierties for a moment and think of efficiency, some of the Government action in the US does not help a lick to defeat al Qaida. In fact, the overreaction and War in Iraq took the steam out of what looked like once to be a collaborative effort to defeat terrorists globally such as JI and al Qaida.
For example, the US probably should have changed to the “spoke and wheel” approach of the UK and Australia MI1 - MI6 or as we know them, DIGO, ASIO, DIO, DSD, ASIS, ONA, IGIS etc.
This leads me to say that all the money spent on the Dept. of Homeland security probably would have been better spent on helping Oman etc catch terrorists and waging war in Afghanistan.
Apparently the USA has 700 foreign military bases across 130 countries. That can’t be cheap.
The war in Afghanistan is hard to justify since Afghanistan isn’t a terrorist sponsor state whereas Iraq was.
Their appears to be some fantasising here that jihadism wasn’t a real problem.
You idiiot Graeme.
Saddam supported Palestinian terrorism fiancnially. There is no link between Iraq and a general terror campagin other than the attempted assassination of Bush I.
Afghanistan (Taliban) gave aid and comfort to al Qaida.
There is no Iraq - al Qaida link. Iraq was a waste of resources. The only possible benefit was the “flypaper theory” that al Qaida was sucked into Iraq and taken to pieces there.
No thats not true. Saddam was a massive promoter of jihadism more generally.
Such as?
Just for a warm-up you might google “Operation Dogmeat.”
American spooktown would only promote the regime-link if the attack was unsuccessful. Saddam would hold international jihadist conferences. He trained terrorists with Jumbos in his terrorist training camps. This at a time of few airline hijackings apart from 9/11. His links with Al Quaeda were acknowledged in the bipartisan committee report albeit cocooned in much mealy-mouthed words. He was known to be planning an attack on Radio free America when an eye-witness report placed Atta in the Czech Republic FOR THE THIRD TIME.
You have to seperate reality from mantra.
” In what the CIA nicknamed “Operation Dogmeat,” two Iraqi students who lived in the Philippines tried to demolish U.S. Information Service headquarters in Manila. Iraqi diplomat Muwufak al Ani met with the bombers five times before the attack. His car even took them near their target on January 19, 1991.
Their bomb exploded prematurely, killing Ahmed J. Ahmed, but his accomplice, Abdul Kadham Saad, survived and was whisked to a Manila hospital. Saad, carrying documents bearing two distinct identities, asked staffers to alert the Iraqi embassy, then recited its phone number. (Page 39.)”
The myth of Saddams non-involvement with Al Quaeda and with international terrorism was foisted on us in a leftist wall-of-sound straight after 9-11. At all previous times Saddams status as the mother-of-all terrorist enablers was well-known and thought to be pretty-much the standard assumption.
Apparently the USA has 700 foreign military bases across 130 countries. That can’t be cheap.
More to the point:
Why so many bases? What is the goal here? I saw an interview with Ron Paul a few weeks and it made it perfectly clear what he would do with all those bases. He’s the only Republican candidate that can be taken seriously.
It’s a legacy of the Cold War at the height of neoconservative military policy. They’re being scaled back with more responsive forces to deal with the new wave of asymmetric threats. I say sne; all the American taxpayer needs to be asking is how much is this going to cost me and can you provide what we need at a lower cost.
GMB; Good information, Its great to find someone not getting their ‘knowledge’ from the left, or the extreme pacifists.
There is probably some call to close some US bases, although with Russia starting to act stroppy again we may have to think about that.
Islamic extremism is not just about ‘blowback’ as Ron Paul would have you think. As I reported in my article on blowback “Al Qaeda’s 2ic Ayman al-Zawahri has now called on Muslims to re-occupy the Iberian Peninsula, or to use their term al-Andalus, you see the French, Portuguese, and Spanish, inconsiderate bastards tossed the Muslims out of there in the 15th century.
He maintains that this is only possible if it is ‘cleansed’ of the children of France and Spain, so it should get interesting for those countries should the people from the ‘religion of peace’ answer his call. Obviously there is more to the rise of Islamofascism than merely blowback, these rabid ideologues are hell bent on world domination with the aim of reestablishing the caliphate.”
Ron Paul is delusional if he thinks this has anything to do with US bases.
Fighting terrorism from 30,000 feet isn’t going to work. The Yanks must not close a few bases they must close the greater majority of the bases. The terrorists are winning because they got us terrified, we are spending enormous sums of money on a problem that kills less people in a year than the US kills in a day. It is possible to spend a million dollars on a 10c problem and Uncle Sam is proof of that. They attacked the World Trade Centre. This is as much about economics as it is about guns. They want us to burn money while they hide in their caves. This is what is asymmetric: the US loses more lives to adverse drug reactions than it does to terrorism.
The terrorists arent “winning” anything that I can see.
Graeme,
Everyone knows Saddam was involved in some terrorism. But how does any of that prove an al Qaida - Saddam link?
Sam’s right, they are getting blown to bits, while pronouncing the fall of America.
I agree with Sam.
John, If the terrorists were winning then they wouldnt have to resort to such desperate tactics as blowing themselves up.
The terrorists don’t have to win the physical war, the war they want to win is turn as many people as possible against Uncle Sam. The stats on that are very strong. Of course they know they can’t beat us militarily, that has never been their goal. The rhetoric of world domination is just to scare us, they can’t be that stupid as to believe it themselves, although obviously many people in the US believe it … . Still, anywhere between 30-50% over there believe in Creation a la Genesis.
To John Hasenkam,
The terrorists DO intend to beat us, and establish a world-wide Caliphate. They believe in the Koran, not in military numbers. Al Qaida is quite unwavering on this point. Of course, it may take a while, but Allah has eternity on His side, so no worries.
One way to beat them is to ignore their demands, no matter how nasty they sound. Islam seems incompatible with science and technology (because these are based on an unchanging natural world, whereas Islam believes in a God of Whims). Therefore, continuous progress will keep on destroying their world-view, which will make them more angry at the world, even as it shrinks their support.
Another point, John. Many of them do seem to be stupid, so they may find it easy to believe they’ll soon rule the world.
Thanks Nicholas,
I’ll grant you that they can be that stupid, just as we were stupid enough to buy outdated fighter aircraft. Still, they must be laughing. Howard is gone, Blair is gone, Bush is worse than a lame duck he is a joke. In the eyes of the Terrorists we may look weaker. I hope so, I hope they come out of their caves but they won’t. They’re not all as stupid as Dubya, who really did believe he could make the globe one big USA.
When our leaders demonstrate less extremism, when our leaders stop babbling about God being on their side and focus on looking after their countries, I think the terrorists will find recruiting much more difficult. The current situation appears to be that we have fostered terrorism, even USA intelligence reports have indicated that. Terrorists are nothing if they cannot recruit.