By Walter Block
A few days ago I published this essay: Block, Walter E. 2014. “Rand Paul, Declaration Of War.” November 27; http://libertycrier.com/rand-paul-declaration-war/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertyCrier+%28Liberty+Crier%29
In it I congratulated Rand Paul for offering a bill to congress requiring them to officially declare war against ISIS before any US troops were sent to the battlefield in the Middle East. I did so not because I thought such a war would be justified (I urged Senator Paul to vote against his own bill when and if it was put on the agenda), but so as to make such an unjustified foreign intervention less likely.
A few days later my old friend and debating partner penned this article: Wenzel, Robert. 2014. “Defending the Undefendable: Walter Block's Defense of Rand Paul's Bill for a Declaration of War Against ISIS.” November 30; http://www.targetliberty.com/2014/11/defending-undefendable-walter-blocks.html
The present letter is my response to Wenzel (2014). I repeat what he says below, and intersperse my reaction to what he says in the body of his essay. I make my comments in bold type following these hash marks (<<<), so as to better distinguish his remarks from my own.
But before I begin, allow me to make a few general comments. It is a pleasure and an honor to cross swords (ok, ok, pens, keyboards) with my colleague Bob Wenzel. The two of us always start from the same (Rothbardian) general principles of non aggression and private property rights based on homesteading. And, yet, these issues are so complicated that with the best will in the world on both sides, we rarely, but sometimes, come to opposite conclusions on matters of public policy. If Bob were a chess player, and brought the same wit and intelligence to that game as he does to matters of economics, politics, libertarian theory, he would be a grandmaster. I have rarely met an intellectual opponent I respect as much. And not only for his keenness. Equally important, perhaps even more so, I appreciate his willingness to see both sides, and his love for liberty.
I now respond to his reaction to my original essay, praising the junior Senator for Kentucky on his bill for a declaration of war.
Defending the Undefendable: Walter Block's Defense of Rand Paul's Bill for a Declaration of War Against ISIS By Robert Wenzel
Professor Walter Block is out with an essay heaping effusive praise on Rand Paul's planned introduction of a bill into the US Senate calling for a declaration of war against ISIS:
Rand Paul is in the process of drafting a bill calling for a declaration of war on the part of the U.S. against ISIS. In my view, this is a magnificent development, and Senator Paul is to be highly congratulated for this brilliant initiative of his... In either case, libertarians, and all men of good will, will owe Rand Paul a great debt of gratitude for this superlative initiative of his.How does Dr. Block justify these superlatives for a war proclamation? He writes:
Why is it so important that the U.S. explicitly declare war? The reason is simple. If the congress must pass such a declaration before hostilities are commenced, then literally hundreds of people must approve. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. If not, and the present policy of “police actions” is continued, then one and only one person need support this, the president of the U.S. (In saying this I abstract from the possibility of his impeachment, or the disobedience of the military, as in a coup de etat.) Very likely, no, surely, we will have fewer military interventions abroad the more people who must sign onto such a policy. The last time the U.S. declared war was in 1941. Since then, there have been literally dozens if not scores of unwarranted imperialist ventures. Almost of a certainty there would have been far fewer of these unjustified actions if each of them had to pass muster by Congress as the Constitution explicitly required...
The point is not who the enemy is, but rather that all possible obstacles to declaring offensive war are put in place. If a declaration of war is required, that is just one more hurdle over which the war-monger must catapult, and the more of them, and the higher they are, the better.The problem with Dr. Block's perspective can best be understood when he writes:
I am concerned, only, with the principle of the matter, from the libertarian perspective.
Dr. Block does not mean that RP's bill is a matter of principle. He means that he is against war from a principled position. This is a good thing. However, most certainly a bill calling for a declaration of war is not a move of principle against war. It is at best, when viewed from Dr. Block's position, a tactic to prevent offensive wars.
<<< So far, I agree 100% with Mr. Wenzel.
But would it accomplish this?
To cheer on such a move is to simply advocate the transfer of the power center from where war is declared. Nothing more. Dr. Block considers the transfer of such power to Congress an advance against war because, "then literally hundreds of people must approve." And this is technically true.
<<< Again, I agree 100% with Mr. Wenzel.
However, is this really a tactic an anti-war person wants to use?
Is Dr. Block underestimating the evil within the military-industrial complex? These men want war. They are not going to stop their war desires simply because of a switch in the power center. They will switch their tactics in response to the power center moving to Congress.
Indeed, with the power center in Congress, it will be more important for warmongers to get the masses on their side. Propaganda will increase to the Nth degree. Perhaps false flag operations will commence. Indeed, the unintended consequence of RP's bill may be more 9-11 attacks, to get the masses in line with war. In other words, it will be much more difficult for the anti-war advocate to gain the ear of the man on the street, when he is in direct battle with the military-industrial complex.
President Obama tried the "Congress tactic" when it came to engaging Syria. And the masses objected to US involvement there. And so what occurred instead? Magically, a new terrorist group emerged, ISIS, armed to some degree with US weapons. They have beheaded Americans and Europeans with YouTube postings of the horrific actions. And suddenly, the masses are not against US military activities in Syria (and Iraq!).
I am not saying with 100% certainty that the ISIS beheadings are false flag operations, but it is clear what type of false flag operations will be needed if Congress must support wars.
And it is simply naive to think that false flag operations are beyond the limits of the military-industrial complex.
<<< Here, Bob Wenzel and I part company. I do not disagree with any of the factual points he makes, rather with the implications he draws from them. I do not see how “Propaganda will increase to the Nth degree.” It is already working at quite a fever pitch. Even if it increases, on the part of the war mongers, it will be at the cost of doing something else they otherwise would have done. There is after all, such a thing as alternative or opportunity costs. The resources of the war mongers are limited, as are all resources. If we can force them via Rand Paul’s initiative to invest some of these resources in this way, we weaken them, overall.
Will there be false flag operations under a declaration of war? Of course there will be. But these already exist. If “Propaganda will increase to the Nth degree” again this will be at the cost of other neo-con initiatives. We, the forces in favor of defensive war only, gain an advantage when we compel our opponents to change their modus operandi.
Indeed. it is curious that Dr. Block brings up the declaration of war in 1941 as an example of the last time war was declared. Is he aware that FDR goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor and that the American government broke Japanese encryption codes and knew what was going to happen, when and where, but that the president did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor? That after the attack American sentiment moved massively in favor of a declaration of war?
<<< Of course I am aware of that sorry episode in U.S. history. It is not for nothing that I read World War II revisionist history, as does Bob. I mention this in my original essay only because it is true. It is indeed the last time the U.S. declared war according to the requirements set out in the Constitution. In my view, the reason many people felt compelled to “fight Hitler” was because of the unwarranted entry of the US into World War I (mainly because our ruling class had more bonds with Britain than with Germany). This led to the extremely punitive Treaty of Versailles, to the German hyperinflation of 1923 and to the rise of the Nazis.
Is he aware that the only war that was stopped by the masses in the US was a war that was not declared by Congress, the Vietnam war?
<<< In any case, the only reason the people were able to stop the Viet Nam war was because the powers that be made the mistake of drafting kids from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and other such places. If they would have limited themselves to getting cannon fodder from the likes of Duckburg State University Teacher’s College, they could have gone on killing innocent people for as long as they wished.
I would much rather have the military-industrial complex focused on influencing a president, then the masses. RP's bill would do nothing but put a big target on the back of the masses and focus the attention of the military-industrial complex on that target. I would rather have the MIC focused elsewhere so that anti-war advocates have less of a battle (but still not an easy battle) against war.
<<< Here, I think, Mr. Wenzel makes a very powerful contribution. But, I insist, we are only discussing tactics and strategy, not goals. We are totally on the same page with regard to the latter. We both want to decrease the likelihood of further US imperialistic wars. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this matter. I see his point. But, I am still of the opinion that the more people who have to be convinced to engage in foreign aggressions, the less likely this is to occur. In any case, the “masses” will have voted for the president.
Further, once a declaration of war is made by Congress, the warmongers have another tool by which to beat back the anti-war movement, "Well, the people, by way of Congress, have spoken and they see the necessity of this war." These wars are never wars of the people. They are wars of the elite, Congressional approval of such wars does nothing but hide this fact.
<<< Yes, yes, another incisive point on Mr. Wenzel’s side. However, I wouldn’t worry, so much, about stopping wars. I am more concerned about not starting them in the first place. I think that the best way not to have a war is not to start one (I am now discussing, only, unjustified imperialistic invasive wars, not defensive ones). Ceteris paribus, which way is it harder for the American ruling class to start a war; allowing the president, alone, to send troops abroad on his own say so, or compelling him to first obtain a majority vote from congress in order to do so? To ask this question is, seemingly, to answer it: of course, requiring a declaration of war makes it more difficult to do so. But, I full well acknowledge the truth of what he says: once a war is started, it will be more difficult to stop it if it has congressional approval. On the other hand, the only war that was ever stopped by US public opinion was the one in Viet Nam, and I continue to believe that our success in that regard was mainly focused on the drafting of kids from Ivy League schools.
In short, RP's bill is calling for a declaration of war and it is only of use by an anti-war advocate as a tactic but it is a tactic that stinks. RP's bill is not a brilliant bill, it is a very dangerous bill.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
In short, RP's bill is calling for a declaration of war and it is only of use by an anti-war advocate as a tactic but it is a tactic that stinks. RP's bill is not a brilliant bill, it is a very dangerous bill.
Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics
8 comments:
AnonymousNovember 30, 2014 at 11:44 AM
Wenzel, great analysis!! Thank you.
AnonymousNovember 30, 2014 at 1:12 PM
To go off topic a bit Isis didn't magically appear. Its the successor to Al Qaeda in Iraq. who were hired by the Saudi Monarchy, the Turks and DC to battle Assad when the Damned Fools in DC finally woke up to the fact they had let the Iranians expand their influence over the area.
But to return to the topic I don't see how a declaration of war would change much at all. I await Walters response with interest.
But to return to the topic I don't see how a declaration of war would change much at all. I await Walters response with interest.
<<< The requirement that war be declared by Congress is a hurdle for the president to overcome. It may not succeed. We may have (unjustified) war in any case. But, it behooves us anti-war libertarians to place every barrier we can against such occurrences. Rand Paul’s bill is one such
There are plenty more reasons the declaration of war against Japan is a terrible example.
I do not favor the declaration of war against Japan. I favor the requirement that the President cannot do this alone, solely on his own say so. This is precisely why FDR had to sucker the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. He had the Japanese codes. He could have warned the admirals of the impending attack. But, so powerful was the Constitution in those days that he dared not send ships and troops to invade Japan, as he wished. He had to get the American public, and congress, behind him. Do we not want to set up roadblocks against unilateral intervention on the part of the President? Is not the Constitutional requirement of a declaration of war one such?
First of all, only ONE person voted against it. Even Robert Taft voted for it. Imagine if they did vote on Rand Paul's declaration and that happened! This is a criminal gang that makes war for a living. It not only could happen, but it has.
It also was not in defense of the US. Hawaii was illegally seized and congress itself decreed so in 1993:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution
This set the precedent for every successive war, where the federal government has carte blanche power to cover the planet in military bases, not for defense, but to use kids as bait.
And much like today, congress effectively passed the war before the declaration through sanctions and arming mass murderers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABCD_line
Declaring war didn't even stop the crimes. Nuking Japan may have been the single greatest war crime in all of history, yet to this day, most people believe it was legitimate.
Today is different. Droning the middle east is unpopular, and it's always big news when the state is caught lying about innocent people killed and labeled "enemy combatants."
But how many people would care about the lies and innocent people after a declaration of war? Down the memory hole they would go, just like nuking Japan, firebombing Dresden, building Stalin's war machine, etc.
The ISIS scam is just a repeat of this very same series of events. It is the time tested method of turning public opinion in favor of what the state wants - power.
First of all, only ONE person voted against it. Even Robert Taft voted for it. Imagine if they did vote on Rand Paul's declaration and that happened! This is a criminal gang that makes war for a living. It not only could happen, but it has.
It also was not in defense of the US. Hawaii was illegally seized and congress itself decreed so in 1993:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution
This set the precedent for every successive war, where the federal government has carte blanche power to cover the planet in military bases, not for defense, but to use kids as bait.
And much like today, congress effectively passed the war before the declaration through sanctions and arming mass murderers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABCD_line
Declaring war didn't even stop the crimes. Nuking Japan may have been the single greatest war crime in all of history, yet to this day, most people believe it was legitimate.
Today is different. Droning the middle east is unpopular, and it's always big news when the state is caught lying about innocent people killed and labeled "enemy combatants."
But how many people would care about the lies and innocent people after a declaration of war? Down the memory hole they would go, just like nuking Japan, firebombing Dresden, building Stalin's war machine, etc.
The ISIS scam is just a repeat of this very same series of events. It is the time tested method of turning public opinion in favor of what the state wants - power.
<<<I agree with much of what Brandon Foreman says. But, I do not see its relevance to the debate between me and Bob Wenzel.
AnonymousNovember 30, 2014 at 1:50 PM
Why is it so hard for Block to sometimes just see the obvious? He's been so prolific in giving everyone an alternative viewpoint, rightfully so in many cases, it's like he's thrown Occam's razor right out the window.
There's nothing "good" about anyone proposing a sovereign national war against a stateless society no matter how you spin it. That's why Ron Paul talked about Letters of Marque in the 08' debates.
There's nothing "good" about anyone proposing a sovereign national war against a stateless society no matter how you spin it. That's why Ron Paul talked about Letters of Marque in the 08' debates.
<<< Hey, I’m not favoring a positive vote on the declaration of war. I explicitly denied this in Block (2014). I am only endorsing that such a vote be held, as a tactic which attempts to stop such unjustified wars.
Jan Helfeld, though filled with cognitive dissonance on the issue of minarchism vs. anarchism(like most minarchists), has been very good on why ISIS is not a threat to US sovereignty and how war IS NOT justified from a Constitutional standpoint, getting major gov't officials to admit there is no imminent threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjbCGQNn2fY&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7Ez4c3Gvo&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX_3QnQXgxI&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ
Sure, most of us here is don't give a damn about the Constitution, but you should use all tools at your disposal to effect libertarian philosophy and I agree with RW, any proposal for a war with no clear enemy seems like both and endorsement of said policy and is very dangerous in terms of the lives put at risk regardless of the claim of political maneuvering.
Also, RW's point about false flag potential seems relevant as well given that the Jihadi John had a British accent and if you view the brief Helfed interview with Bolton, Bolton states that ISIS members have US and European passports....
Jan Helfeld, though filled with cognitive dissonance on the issue of minarchism vs. anarchism(like most minarchists), has been very good on why ISIS is not a threat to US sovereignty and how war IS NOT justified from a Constitutional standpoint, getting major gov't officials to admit there is no imminent threat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjbCGQNn2fY&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7Ez4c3Gvo&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX_3QnQXgxI&list=UUwYtzX-vfZ2krwYqVQHOvSQ
Sure, most of us here is don't give a damn about the Constitution, but you should use all tools at your disposal to effect libertarian philosophy and I agree with RW, any proposal for a war with no clear enemy seems like both and endorsement of said policy and is very dangerous in terms of the lives put at risk regardless of the claim of political maneuvering.
Also, RW's point about false flag potential seems relevant as well given that the Jihadi John had a British accent and if you view the brief Helfed interview with Bolton, Bolton states that ISIS members have US and European passports....
<<< I suggest you reread Block (2014). It says just about the opposite of what you attribute to it.
Hopefully Block will come around to Robert's views, which always contains the most consistent and accurate, true libertarian analysis.
<<< I think Robert makes some excellent points. But, this is an empirical issue, it is not a matter of praxeology. Will setting up this hurdle decrease or increase the incidence of unjustified military incursions into foreign lands whose people constitute no danger to the U.S. Reasonable people can disagree on this matter.
Walter's wandered off of the reservation on this one I'm afraid. There comes a point (and we have almost reached it) where Rand Paul does not deserve to be "saved" from his dangerous foolishness in his quest for Republican favor. Good job, Bob.
While RW makes some excellent points and Block is being his usual loud mouthed obnoxious self I don't think its worth arguing about. Either way the politicians will continue to use false flag operations and propaganda lies to line their pockets with the war machine. Its an old clichéd saying but seems very appropriate to describe this argument as like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic ocean liner. We should use our energy to save ourselves for another day rather than trying to slow the sinking of this ship of state.
<<< “Loud mouthed obnoxious self”? I am trying to have a civil discussion here. How does such name-calling help?
Michael BluntNovember 30, 2014 at 7:50 PM
Well, it is fine for you to say that we should move on but Block is promoting Rand's bill, should we just ignore Block? That's absurd. He is a major thinker/influencer in the libertarian movement.
<<< Thanks for your kind remarks. Certainly, Bob Wenzel is not “ignoring” me. Very much to the contrary, he has always been very forthcoming in publishing my essays, in engaging with me in a very civil manner, etc. I think I speak for him, too, when I say that he and I both learn from each other, and speaking out on our (very few) disagreements is mutually beneficial.
I actually Google'd "Duckburg State University Teacher’s College"...lol
ReplyDelete