-Caveat Lector-
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch24.html
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
The Irrepressible Rothbard
Essays of Murray N. Rothbard
Edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
MR. BUSH'S SHOOTING WAR
February 1991
On January 16, 1991, a day which shall live in infamy, George Bush finally
got his
cherished shooting war. The United States launched an avalanche of mass
murder and mass destruction upon a small, impoverished third-world
country. Bush and the military finally got to uncork their high-tech
devastation; and the military-industrial complex, secure in the vanishing of
the short-lived "peace dividend," can stand tall once more. By personalizing
the war and narrowing it to Saddam Hussein, Bush has managed to make
Americans forget about the countless number of Iraqi civilians he is going
to maim and murder. Or maybe there is nothing to forget: one reason why
a U.S. war is always depressing to libertarians is because each new war is
yet another demonstration that many Americans are only concerned about
American lives and body bags, and care not a fig for the annihilation of
citizens of other countries.
George Bush was, of course, able to maneuver us into a shooting war by
aggressively and viciously, in barracks-room language, denying Saddam
anyway out, any compromise, any avenue of negotiation. "Just get out,
unconditionally...He doesn't need any face...I'm going to kick his ass." What
head of State, ever, is going to submit under such terms? Every promising
initiative by a third party was shot down brusquely by Bush; even the last-
minute proposal by France that the U.N. simply implement its own
resolutions by holding a Mideast conference (as suggested by Tariq Aziz)
was shot down quickly by Bush as "linkage" and "rewarding the aggressor."
George Bush worked his evil will in the face of a sharply divided country
and of an anti-war movement of unprecedented scope at this early stage
of a US war. He was aided and abetted in this course by a supine Congress.
The iniquity of Congress was bipartisan. What happened to the
conservative Republicans, so defiant in opposition to Bush's tax increase?
They folded totally in the face of the power of the president. As for the
Democrats, led by George Mitchell and Tom Foley � they deliberately
waited cravenly to debate until the last minute, when they could
effectively be clobbered by the cry to support the president in his last
hours of negotiation. And when they finally did allow a debate, they
refused to use any muscle to rally the Democrats behind them. In that
way, they could support the president, while keeping their voting records
clear in case the war should eventually turn sour.
In the highly touted and self-congratulatory Great Debate on the eve of
war, congressman after congressman got up to admit that the mail from his
constituents was running 9-to-1 or 11-to-1 against the war resolution, but
he was, blah, blah, blah, voting for it anyway. Why? Amidst all the
congratulations, why did no one ask what kind of "democracy" are we living
under, when the Congressmen are willing to defy so blatantly the
expressed will of the public?
HAWK THEORY DISPROVED
Throughout the preparation period until January 15, the Bush
administration and its stooges operated on one and only one dimwit
theory, which they intoned endlessly: That if Bush could only send a "clear
message" that the US will be ultra-tough and will exert maximum force
against Iraq on passing the deadline, Saddam Hussein will certainly turn tail
and leave Kuwait. As time went on, Saddam showed no signs of buckling,
Bush kept reiterating that "he must not have gotten the message
clearly...he doesn't understand the message." Indeed, the decisive
argument that convinced the pro-Bush Democrats in Congress was that,
especially at that late date, a defeat would weaken or negate that
"message." Hence, as Doug Ireland pointed out in the Village Voice (Jan.
22), "the debate was conducted almost entirely in Orwellian terms: those
who voted war spoke for peace." Ireland also pointed to the "bilge" of the
New York Times editorial after the debate that "Congress has armed the
president, first and foremost, for peace." Yeah sure. And that's what we
got, right?
In vain did Tariq Aziz, in his eloquent but totally unheeded press
conference at Geneva, rebut that Iraq understood the "message" all too
well that, "We know very well what the president is saying. We too watch
CNN."
And so Saddam Hussein did not surrender, did not quit, and thus
successfully knocked the Bush-hawk theory into a cocked hat. Did
Congress, after the deadline of January 15, rush to recognize this fact and
rescind its approval of Bush's war, as it logically and morally should have
done? To the contrary, Congress capped its abject and spineless role by
rushing to pass a unanimous resolution, after the war began, commending
George Bush! O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have
lost their reason.
The only war hawk who momentarily saw the light was none other than
Henry Kissinger. The night the shooting war started, Kissinger, in a rare
moment of self-criticism on television, admitted that he was greatly
surprised that, after all the ultra-toughness on the part of the US, Saddam
Hussein had not cut and run.
Well, I have news for Kissinger and the other war hawks, to the extent
that their toughness- surrender model was not simply a coverup for a
cherished war. Answer me this, war hawks: when, in history, when did one
State, faced with belligerent, ultra-tough ultimatums by another, when did
that State ever give up and in effect surrender � before any war was
fought? When? Certainly not the Japanese, who responded to Secretary of
State Cordell Hull's "get out of China" ultimatum of November 27, 1941, by
going to war at Pearl Harbor. Then who? I can't think of a single instance.
My old friend, Dr. David Gordon, Mr. Erudition, mentioned an instance in
the nineteenth century when Belgium caved in to a French ultimatum, but
that proves my point: you really have to reach. No head of State with any
pride or self-respect, or who wishes to keep the respect of his citizens,
will surrender to such an ultimatum. The whole point, is that by
belligerently sealing off any face-saving or way out for Saddam, the Bush
administration in effect insured that war would come.
Television commentators on the Congressional debate observed that the
two sides had two contrasting models of previous wars in their minds when
they cast their votes. The pro- Bushers were operating on the "Hitler
appeasement" model, the antis on the "Vietnam War" model. The odd thing
is that no one, in Congress or out, has referred to a far more apposite
model: World War I, the monstrous granddaddy of all the major wars of the
incredibly bloody twentieth century. In World War I, no one "appeased"
anyone else, everyone was ultra- hawkish, mobilized, and hung tough, and
the result was a momentous, totally disastrous, and useless four-year war
that devastated Europe beyond repair, and ineluctably set the stage for
the victories of Communism and Nazism, neither of which would have
gotten anywhere if peace had prevailed. War-hawk theory is not only
grievously and evidently incorrect, it has the blood of countless millions on
its hands.
Will the conspicuous failure of this theory in the case of Saddam discredit
it at long last? Hah! That'll be the day. To quote the great Mencken in a
different but similar context: it will happen "on the Tuesday following the
first Monday of November preceding the Resurrection Morn."
Neither was World War II in Europe a case where toughness worked. On
the contrary, Hitler disregarded the English guarantee to Poland that
brought England and France into the German-Polish war in September
1939. And even if that failure can be dismissed as sending "mixed signals" to
Hitler after Munich, no country could have had a tougher and hawkier
foreign policy than Colonel Josef Beck and his ruling junta of Polish
colonels in the late 1930s. Geopolitically, the new country of Poland faced
the two Great Powers of Germany and Soviet Russia on its borders. Any
sort of rational foreign policy at the time would have required Poland to
be friendly and dovish with at least one, and preferably both, of these
powers to insure national survival. Instead, in a burst of hawkish idiocy that
should remain as a permanent alarm bell against a tough, hawkish foreign
policy, the Polish colonels stubbornly refused to negotiate at all on the
substantial territorial demands or grievances of either power, thus assuring
Polish doom for half a century.
To return to the present war, let us finally assess the hawk theory by
indulging in a lovely hypothetical: suppose that some miracle occurred,
and a superpower United Nations was sending the United States a series of
stern resolutions ordering US troops out of Panama unconditionally, and by
January 15. As the US refuses to pull out, suppose, too, that the UN sends
a series of "clarifying" messages, warning Bush of crushing consequences
and maximum force if the US does not pull out, replete with comments
that the US must not be rewarded for its aggression against Panama, that
no excuses will be entertained, and that if Bush does not pull out in
accordance with UN orders, Perez de Cuellar will "kick his ass." Does
anyone imagine for a single second that Bush would comply? But, why not,
if the hawk theory is true?
A COVER FOR GORBY
And in the meanwhile, as all US power and attention are focused on
Saddam, Gorby unsheathes his claws, forgets about "democracy," and
launches a crackdown against the gallant Baltic states. What is Bush's
reaction? Does he show at least as much concern for "freedom" and the
"rights of small nations" in the Baltic as he does for a phony "nation" that is
merely an oil company wholly-owned by the Sabah kleptocracy? Fat
chance. No, with Gorby, Bush is the essence of politeness, tapping his
wrist with faint regrets and mild hopes for improvement. No, nothing must
be allowed to disturb the billions of dollars that Bush is shoveling into the
maw of the Gorbachev regime, helping to fasten repression once again
upon the Baltics and the peoples of the Soviet Union. To say that this is a
"double standard" is scarcely enough to describe the shamefulness of the
Bush foreign policy. Truckling to monstrous dictatorial regimes such as the
Chinese and the Soviets, while trumpeting the high morality of our defense
of "small nations" and the New World Order in the case of Kuwait, is simply
sickening.
And it is not enough for neoconservatives like Frank Gaffney to call (on
Crossfire) for a hawkish policy toward both the U.S.S.R. and Iraq. In the
first place, even as crazed a war- hawk as Gaffney only wants all-out war
against Iraq; against the Soviet Union, he only wants diplomatic pressure
and economic sanctions. But more importantly, the whole point of the
Bush foreign policy is that the establishment and enforcement of his
beloved New World Order requires the support and consent of China and
the USSR, both of whom have permanent veto power on the UN Security
Council. American de facto dominance under the de jure cover of the
United Nations and the "world community" requires the US to purchase
the consent of these two still-monstrous regimes.
The seemingly eerie coincidence of Gorby cracking down on the Baltics
with the Soviets cracking down on the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 under
cover of the Anglo-French-Israeli war against Egypt, has already been
noted widely. But it is no mere coincidence. A more interesting question
is this: was there a private agreement between Bush and Gorby at one of
their summits that Bush would look the other way from a Gorby crackdown
if Gorby loyally supported us on Iraq? It sure looks like it.
This suspicion has met with the usual barrage of "paranoia" and "conspiracy
theory of history." Conspiracy analysis is hardly a "theory of history"; the
analyst is trying to make sense out of seemingly peculiar or senseless
actions, by postulating rational, if cynical, motives on the part of historical
actors. Since the archives won't be opened for decades, we have to
proceed in political life on our best guesses, and such guesses can only be
enriched by considering plausible causal theories. In this case, our
"conspiracy" analysis fits all the facts and has terrific predictive value. And
as for "paranoia," I like to recall the definition of an old friend of mine,
"today's 'paranoia' is tomorrow's headlines."
Does no one remember our pre-Cold War Soviet policy? I refer, of course,
to our World War II alliance with Stalin, and to its fruits in such pro-Soviet
deals as Potsdam, Yalta, and the murderous Operation Keelhaul. And above
all, that reached its culmination in the United Nations, designed to bring
about a New World Order run jointly by the US and USSR In the new post-
Cold War Era, it is precisely that self-same New World Order that is now
being trumpeted by George Bush.
I am of course not calling for a revival of the Cold War against the Gorby
regime. What I am proposing is simply old-fashioned "isolationism": that is, a
policy that is neither engaged in warfare against the Soviet Union nor
busily subsidizing it. That is, a foreign policy where the US does not spend
its time trying to decide which countries are "bad guys" who we war
against, as versus "good guys" upon whom we lavish all manner of favors and
aid.
It would be nice, too, if the Bush administration ceased all the hokum
about our "Coalition partners" throughout the world. As Tariq Aziz pointed
out, the pitiful contributions to the war effort of our "partners" were
purchased by the US with "billions and billions of dollars" of aid, that is, of
the money of American taxpayers.
RANDOM NOTES ON THE WAR
Particularly heroic in the Congressional vote was Senator Mark Hatfield (R.,
Ore.). Not only was Hatfield one of only two Republican Senators to vote
against the war resolution (the other was Charles Grassley of Iowa), but he
also voted against the Democratic resolution, because he is opposed to
the Democratic policy of sanctions. In short, Hatfield, a prominent anti-
Vietnam War dove, was against the US being in the Persian Gulf to begin
with. Hatfield has also long been the most ardent opponent of
conscription in the US Congress.
All this reminds me that during 1970-71, Senator Hatfield was seriously
contemplating running against President Nixon in 1972. During that era, I
and several other libertarians met the Senator in his office, during which
he flatly declared himself to be an old Taft Republican and a libertarian."
At one point, he spontaneously assured us that "I have not, like Faust, sold
my soul to politics." When I set forth the "New Libertarian Creed" in the
New York Times (Feb. 9, 1971), in reply to an attack on libertarianism by
Bill Buckley, Hatfield read it into the Congressional Record (Feb. 24), and
also wrote a favorable review of my Power and Market (The Individualist,
Feb. 1971).
At any rate, nostalgia has now been greatly reinforced by Hatfield's
current vote; his deviations from economic liberty in the past two decades
surely pale in comparison.
*****
I was glad to see a powerful article against the imminent war by my old
friend, New York Reform Democrat and quasi-libertarian George N. Spitz.
("Why Not Let Iraq Save Face?" USA Today, Jan. 15) Spitz wrote that "as an
Orthodox Jew who respects Torah (biblical) values, I am distressed by the
belligerence of Israel and many US Jews...I was surprised and gratified
when a majority of Jewish members of Congress voted against the
resolutions authorizing military force." Typically, Spitz was once a member
of the Libertarian Party of New York, but was driven out by the gaggle of
youthful Modals because he wasn't "pure."
It is all too possible that the last-minute decision of Brooklyn's
Representative Charles Schumer to vote against the war was influenced by
a predicted reapportionment primary battle with fellow-Brooklyn
Democratic Stephen Solarz, a Vietnam dove who rivals even Senator
D'Amato (R., N.Y.) in his thirst for Iraqi blood.
*****
After a night and day of merciless pounding by US missiles, Iraq finally got
off seven SCUD missiles in the direction of Israel. They landed in the cities
of Haifa and Tel Aviv, and yet did not succeed in killing a single Israeli. This
is the great military threat to the United States, against which we had to
take action now? Who's been conning us?
*****
Whatever happened to our alleged original purpose in dispatching US
troops to Arabia: to save Saudi Arabia from allegedly imminent attack?
Remember when the role of the troops was supposed to be "purely
defensive?" Does anyone really think now that Saddam had the slightest
intention of invading Saudi Arabia?
Whatever happened to the defensive posture of the US? I'll remind you:
just two days after the November elections, the defensive was abruptly
abandoned by Mr. Bush, who announced the doubling of our troops in the
Gulf, and the objective of kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. No wonder that
the Village Voice, in its trenchant editorial against the war, calls Bush "our
prevaricating president." And more important, we see why the Voice, in
this context, cites Gore Vidal's perceptive remark that "America is a
country that has elections instead of politics" (Village Voice, Jan. 22), that
is, phony circuses instead of exercising genuine choices.
*****
No sooner did the war start, when those sportswriters who aspire to
become pundits called for the closing down of the football play-offs and
the Super Bowl. No matter that sports (except, of course, for the
Olympics) went on as usual during all of World War II. No matter that
closing down sports or other entertainment would add not one whit to
the war effort. All it would do is harm civilian life, should always proceed
as normally as possible. But, as, Jackie Mason likes to say: "Every schmuck
becomes a philosopher!"
In the first days of the war, when every channel featured wall-to-wall
coverage, I quickly evolved my own personal rules for when to switch
channels. I hit the remote control button at (1) pickups from the man-in-
the-street (knew nothing); (2) interviews with any politician (ugh!); (3)
official U.S. pool coverage (shots of US planes landing in a dark airfield); (4)
any pictures of Wolf Blitzer (is there any TV channel or radio station that
does not feature this ex-Mossadnik?).
CALVIN TRILLIN, POLITICAL ANALYST
Once again, Calvin Trillin, left-liberal political humorist, is revealed to be
one of our most perceptive political analysts. Trillin has enunciated two
keen, if chilling, political rules: One is that "sooner or later, every
president makes you nostalgic for his predecessor." I now have to confess
that George Bush is making me yearn for Ronald Reagan. Why? Not only did
Reagan move to end the Cold War, he never got us into a war in the
Middle East. Or rather, after a kamikaze attack killed two hundred Marines,
Reagan, quietly, but quickly, making no noise about it, got us clean out of
Lebanon!
The second insight of Trillin was an explanation of why Reagan was
successful whereas Carter was not. Because Reagan launched a very big,
and therefore successful, invasion of a very small country (Grenada.) In
contrast, Carter launched a very small and therefore unsuccessful, invasion
of a very big country (Iran). George Bush, Trillin wrote, followed up the
Reagan course by a very big invasion of the next smallest country (since he
couldn't very well re-invade Grenada): Panama. So is Iraq this year's Bush
invasion? Who's next? RALLY ROUND "OUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF"?
The orthodox line, even among many critics of the war, is that, at least for
a while, or until the body bags start coming home," we must rally round
"our" commander-in-chief. Sorry folks, I ain't rallyin. In the first place, he is
not "our" commander-in-chief. The Constitution makes him the commander-
in-chief of the armed forces, and as yet, we have not been conscripted. I
do not propose to be a cheerleader for Mr. Bush's immoral, unjust, and
unnecessary war, now or later. I stand with the great John Randolph of
Roanoke, who set forth his principles thus:
"Love of peace, hatred of offensive war, jealousy of the state governments
toward the general government; a dread of standing armies; a loathing of
public debt, taxes, and excises; tenderness for the liberty of the citizen;
jealousy, Argus-eyed jealousy, of the patronage of the president."
Or, let H.L. Mencken have the last word with this bit of perceptive
doggerel:
When after many battles past, Both, tired with blows, make
peace at last,What is it, after all, the people
get? Why, taxes, widows, wooden
legs, and debt.
Order the Book Here
Murray Rothbard Library & Resources
Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch24.html
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.
Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article
have to stand on their own merits.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do
not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera-
tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and
rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is
written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on
the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after
careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with
reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief,
from the Kalama Sut
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
