I listened to several lectures from the Imperialism: Enemy of Freedom lecture series. I was disappointed that there wasn’t a clear refutation of common reasons given to justify war in the current political climate–namely humanitarianism and, to a lesser extent, non-proliferation of WMD’s. The movies Hotel Rwanda and Sum of all Fears, for example, give particularly convincing arguments for these justifications. I was wondering if there is an article on this site specifically dealing with a refutation of these and other commonly posed justification for war.
I would think that the main objections to going to war for humanitarian reasons would focus on the nature of the military that would be being used (some people object to the way that soldiers are recruited; others object to the way that the military and its projects are funded), as well as the likelihood of collateral damage. Otherwise, going to war to protect rights would be legitimate on the same principle that makes it permissible to jump in and save a victim from a murderer, rapist, or thief. (Of course, there are some who think that it’s impermissible to protect others’ rights through the use of force, but I don’t find their position plausible, so won’t try to address it.)
‘war’
for
‘humanitarianism’
Isn’t that a distinct contradiction in terms? Like saying ‘war’ for ‘peace’ or something? (or ‘mandatory volunteering’)
Either way, I take the position that if you personally want to grab an AK and go fight for some lad’s freedom in Africa, go ahead. I don’t see a need to obligate everyone else into doing so as well. If we take the position that not helping people in mortal danger is evil, then congratulations, except for maybe 23.8 people (a totally accurate number, look it up on Wikipedia about 18:00 when I’ll be editing it), everyone on the planet is evil.
The problem is that “war”, by opposition to individual self- (or neightbours-) defence, always leads to anti-humanitarianism - both because of the means it uses and the consequences it produces; in the sense that it entails some coercion and a massive amount of collateral victims. Besides, as all recent examples have shown, so-called “humanitarian” intervention is actually worsening the situation of the people it is supposed to defend.
There would be no positive obligation to intervene, in any event; “humanitarianism” is only sometimes claimed as an argument against the otherwise total ban on agressive wars in international law… the notable exception being a Security Council Resolution.
Is there an article/book on this site showing evidence of this? It seems for example that S-Korea is doing alot better than N-Korea, for example.
Also, i was wondering if there was a more sophisticated treatment of this topic by one of the Mises scholars. Can any1 point me to an article?
Not necessarily. As mentioned before Hotel Rawanda makes a convincing case that Clinton could have easily stoped the genocide in Rawanda, simply by military presence. Also, the civil war (I know everyone here hates Lincoln) even though bloody, did emancipate the slaves. It hard to say that emancipation isn’t a humanitarian cause.
Wars are waged by states against an enemy, and wars cost money. Therefore is the state justified in taxing (robbing) its citizens to help somebody else? No. I believe in humanitarian aid, but I do not believe that it should ever be given by the hand of the state. The state’s only service is to protect the rights of its citizens. Waging war against a small rebel army in central Africa does not fall into this category.
Also, you must remember that when the government steals citizens’ money, those people have less to spend on private humanitarian efforts.
As to why Clinton did not step in and help stop the Rwandan Genocide; it is because he had the memory of the disaster in Somalia that occured only a year earlier, under alomst the same circumstances.
N/S Korea War was not humanitarian intervention, nor ever claimed to be such; it was part of the cold war, right?
Not sure whether you can find an analysis of the issue from one of the Mises Institute scholar, sooorry for that! … maybe it’d be worth asking to one of the moderators?
PS: the civil war / war bwn the states didn’t emancipate the slaves; there was still slavery in several northern states for several years after the end of the war… besides, it wasn’t the cause of the war; unlike what Lincoln tried to sell to the european powers to prevent them from entering the conflict on the side of the confederation!
PS 2: everyone here does hate Lincoln and considers him as (one of) the worst US presidents [cf the thread on this exact topic] because he is the exact opposite of a libertarian politician (even assuming for argument’s sake that the expression isn’t a contradiction in terms); he violated the constitution, abolished most civil rights, engaged in an agressive war against people who were just minding their own business, engaged in conscription, ordered firing on unarmed crowds of demonstrators, etc. etc. -the list is endless but that gives you the flavour of the libertarian dislike for the character.
Yes, you are right, Korea was about stopping the spread of communism.
How do I ask a question to the moderators?
I find ironic that countries that own vast arsenals of both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons are always the first threatening to blast to kingdom come anyone tinkering around a nuclear petard. But let’s return to the topic at hand.
Let’s say that Grognak the Mighty Chieftain wants to grab the neighbouring tribe’s land, steal their goats and reduce the population into slavery. That’s bad, not ethically acceptable under any circustance.
But now let’s say that Grognak the Mighty Chieftain’s tribe has grown more “civilized” and had Krull, the High Priest, tells his chieftain that the neighbouring tribe has disgusting, uncivilized habits: perhaps they sacrifice animals to their stone idols, perhaps they do not allow their women to sit in the Elders’ Council. So Grognak arms his small band of plunderers and head straight into his neighbours’ lands to beat some sense into their heathen heads. That’s more acceptable to many, but what’s the difference? Grognak’s warriors will split skulls, burn huts and lay waste to the land anyway. It reminds me of Augustine saying that heretics should be dragged back to the Flock even in chains.
And another thing, perhaps more important. What would happen if a politicians would say “we need to send troops to the Sudan to kick Chinese interests out of the country and solidify our hold on Africa”. Nobody would buy that. But now wrap it up in humanitarian rhetoric and you’ll have Hollywood and the elegant leftists marching compact under your banner to save the poor children of Darfur.
My reaction to this is mostly pragmatic. An effective military consists of highly trained (and highly trainable), semi-civilized barbarians. You are not going to get them whipped up into fight mode over “humanitarian” issues involving people they don’t know. By the same token, people who put a lot of stock in such things don’t make for a very effective fighting force.
I used to believe in “wars for freedom” until I saw what our latest “war for freedom” has done. Depleted uranium pollution, the economy nearly collapsing, and government thugs reading our email. Maybe the American Founding Fathers had it right after all!
and another one:
The founders’ approach served America well; de Tocquville described America’s military preparedness as simply pitiful, but observed that Americans lived without fear of their enemies, because they had none.
Besides, I also think that, nearly every time the “pro-freedom” side takes on the forces of tyranny on the killing fields, they will inevitably have to make alliances with questionable parties. The U.S., for example, had to fight alongside Stalin to eradicate Hitler. Then, we had to support puppet government in Africa, Central America, and elsewhere to protect against the Communists; then, the Islamic mujahadeen we had supported became our enemies in the Middle East. We can expect this cycle, the cycle of cleaning up the political mess from the last war by starting another one, will continue indefinitely.
Every time soldier come home from war, many of them are in terrible health, physically and psychologically. We ruin the lives of our own troops by wasting their efforts in ill-conceived, unnecessary wars.
Now can you understand why we shouldn’t send our young men and women into foreign countries where they don’t need to be?
Resurrecting an old thread I know, but I’m not reading much in the way of resolution here.
I don’t see the founding fathers as inherently anti-war in any way. In fact, because they knew the need for war would arise, they specifically provided the one and only method by which war would be fought. That is, by declaration from congress who are the collective representatives of the people. This statute is important because only congress can tax the people, collect the revenue, and then direct those resources to the military. Thus, if it becomes obvious to me that a war being fought is no longer for humanitarian reasons, then I can request from my congress-person to withdraw support or I can vote for someone who will withdraw support in the next election. The constitution also seems to require all professional armies to be disbanded after two years unless a declaration of war is renewed - providing an inherent restriction on the length of war.
Today, I, as an individual, no longer have this kind of clout over a congress-person who in turn doesn’t have this kind of clout over the executive branch. Instead, a president can make the sole decision on whether or not to go to war based on his (or her) personal opinion. If the war loses my support, there’s nothing I can do. My tax dollars continue to be funneled into the military and used by the president to do his/her will (or paid via. inflation but that’s a whole new story).
I have no problem paying my taxes to pay a professional army to enforce peace in Rwanda or Darfur (or possibly taking up arms and going myself), but I would no longer be in favor of this occupation of Iraq. Whether I was fully in favor or not, these kinds of invasions would have to be reviewed every two years and support withdrawn if it was no longer popular.
In summary, yes, humanitarianism and non-proliferation of WMDs are good justifications for war, but the choice to engage in such wars under that justification should lie with the people through their congress-person, not through a President who can do whatever he/she wants with our troops for 4 or 8 years.
Then you would have no problem voluntarily paying a professional army to enforce peace in Rwanda or Darfur, correct?
Why resort to the widespread appropriation of taxation? Assuming most people feel the way you do (and if they don’t, why would intervention be justified?), your humanitarian cause will be supported. This assures a proportionate use of funds relative to actual demand for intervention.
Yes, no problem at all. Be it through government or through private mercenaries, both achieve the same goals. Private mercenaries would be ideal because they would be easier to withdraw support from in case things get out of hand. But we are no where near that kind of freedom.
Then you are able to provide an actual example of a government army achieving a humanitarian goal in a humanitarian war?
Not particularly. But I can think of times when it would have been beneficial. I could definitely see it to the advantage of, say, The Democratic Republic of the Congo (or whatever it was called at the time) to intervene in the Rwandan genocide lest the problem should spill over the border. Chad faced a strain on resources because of the unrest in the Darfur.
I think the amount of government intervention in humanitarian wars is so few and far between that it becomes even more difficult to find one that was actually successful.
Congo, Chad, Darfur… Why does humanitarianism always entails you invading some place else? How about we humanitarianly invade you for a change? I heard you don`t even have universal health care. Jesus Christ, you are so disenfranchised!