Saturday, March 26, 2016

Another Response to Dom Armentano on Trump

By Rick Miller

Dr. Armentano is not taking a libertarian position, in my view.  How could he claim the radicals are a great enough threat to advocate for Trumpian nuclear strikes, but then say about belligerency in foreign policy, “If that radicalizes them even more, so be it.”  Is the goal to reduce radicalization or not?  In light of Armentano’s advocacy for Trump, I recommend a lecture by Dr. Robert Pape: “Dying to Win” 

In this presentation, Dr. Pape analyzes the motivation for suicide terrorism, and concludes that such radicalization is a symptom of occupation.  He advocates for a policy called Off-Shore Balancing (OSB), which he believes would allow the US to protect its “strategic interests and obligations” without prompting radicalization and suicide terrorism.  The key to preventing radicalization, according to Pape, is avoiding occupation, although Pape does argue for the US government to use other means to protect its interests.

Trump, on the other hand, advocates the following, “Any place where they have oil, I would knock the hell out of ‘em, and I would put boots on the ground in those areas; I would take the oil.”  However, as we have experienced since 9/11, sending the troops leads inexorably to occupation.  Is this really something Armantano is in favor of?  In addition, Dr. Pape’s conclusion that occupation is the impetus for radicalization means Trump’s policy of “boots on the ground” is certain to exacerbate the problem.

We can be assured that no matter who is elected to the presidency, the person is going to be an interventionist.  However, Hillaryhas criticized Trump and Cruz for their belligerence and seems to be leaving the boots on the ground camp regarding ISIS.  She is instead advocating air strikes and other measures, which is more akin to Pape’s OSB.  AND- she never used the “N- word” like Dom and Block’s man Trump has.

If we are to make a judgement as to who is, at least rhetorically speaking, closer to the libertarian position in this case we would have to say it is Hillary because she is not advocating for nuclear strikes or boots on the ground.  This is not to say either one of them are anywhere near a libertarian position, but Trump is further away in this case.

Ron Paul was recently discussing radicalism in an interview with Chris Rossini who asked, “Are we supposed to believe that someone (an Islamic radical) wants to blow himself up because Americans are able to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton?”  Paul answered:

“I think that is a big myth, and one of the most serious myths that has floated around since 9/11- that disgruntled, violent jihadists want to come and kill us.  They do- but, the fraud in this…is that they want to do it because we are free and we are prosperous and they resent us.  Well, I don’t believe that for a minute that that is the reason…they have to think about the reflection of the foreign policy that we have and that, of course, is the major reason.”

I agree with Paul that a belligerent foreign policy is a major reason cause of radicalization.  Why would a libertarian want to follow such a course, or encourage anyone else to do so?  Paul’s advice follows:

“I think that we should believe in liberty.   We should understand what free markets are all about.  We should understand what the proper foreign policy ought to be.  We ought to follow it.  It would produce so much peace and so much prosperity for us (that) other nations would say, ‘Why is America doing so well?  And, they’re not bothering us, and we don’t hate America nearly like it was when they were bombing and killing us.’  People would say, ‘maybe we ought to follow them.’ That is the way to spread the exceptional qualities of being an American.  Doing it by the force of arms won’t work, that’s a myth…the more we do that, the worse we get- we get poorer and less free constantly…It is not in the camps of the Europeans to deal with that- it is in our camps to deal with our system, to set that example that others would want to emulate.”
I hope you can find time to watch Dr. Pape's presentation.  Although he falls short in his policy recommendation from the libertarian view, he presents a convincing case that radicalization is not a spontaneous event, and that these folks are not just a bunch of "lunatics".  Those who are radicalized are responding as anyone would in the face of a belligerent US foreign policy.

8 comments:

  1. Now I've heard it all, Hillary is closest to the libertarian viewpoint. Couldn't read much past that honestly, I really hope there is something differant to talk about soon.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't understand why anyone thinks we need to threaten anyone with nuclear weapons. Does anyone not know that we have them? Or that we have used them? It's like a boxer saying "Here comes the left hook." I also don't understand how anyone thinks they can judge what any politician will do by their words. I do understand a fella could learn a lot from Dr Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree completely that "those who are radicalized are responding as anyone would in the face of a belligerent US foreign policy." And we can ALL agree that the correct (libertarian) foreign policy is to withdraw from the Middle East and elsewhere and tend to our own affairs. Fine. But, goodness, let's try for a little realism here; this is simply NOT going to happen with any of the current political candidates. So the real policy question here is: What does a Trump (or Clinton) say now to deter large-scale terrorist attacks (even including nuclear weapons) on innocents? And my response was (and is) that if they threaten city-wide destruction with conventional or nuclear weapons (and if that threat is credible) than it is appropriate--in defense--to threaten retaliation. If you have the means and opportunity, and if you threaten my family with murder, I am within my rights of self-defense to threaten you right back with equal force. Now I could call the police and this might deter the original threat but in the foreign policy international arena there is no "police" to call. Trump did not put the matter quite as carefully (and I made that clear in my first post) but that is my position and the only one (he has made dozens of other outrageous statements) that I can support on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you suggesting that if we would have threatened the Brussels bombers, that would have prevented the attack?

      Delete
  4. Dominick,

    “Now I could call the police and this might deter the original threat but in the foreign policy international arena there is no "police" to call.”

    Thank goodness what you say is true! However, you are saying that activating the war machine in the worst way is acceptable from a libertarian view, and I couldn’t disagree more. In fact, I believe the opposite is true, for many different reasons. Do you disagree with Dr. Paul when he says, “Doing it by the force of arms won’t work, that’s a myth…the more we do that, the worse we get- we get poorer and less free constantly”?

    “So the real policy question here is: What does a Trump (or Clinton) say now to deter large-scale terrorist attacks (even including nuclear weapons) on innocents? And my response was (and is) that if they threaten city-wide destruction with conventional or nuclear weapons (and if that threat is credible) than it is appropriate--in defense--to threaten retaliation. If you have the means and opportunity, and if you threaten my family with murder, I am within my rights of self-defense to threaten you right back with equal force. “

    A couple questions:

    If someone threatened another person who you have no familial connection to are you, in your view, “within my rights of self-defense to threaten (them) right back with equal force“?

    Also, did you listen to the Pape Lecture linked in the article? Consequently, do you have an answer for my claim that because Trump says he would put “boots on the ground”, that his policy is uniquely more dangerous than Hillary’ in that it does precisely what Pape says causes radicalization? Here is a link to the lecture:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HnIyClHEM

    When Trump uses the “N-word”, it could act as a deterrent in the short term, but his policy of occupation will exacerbate the problem of radicalization. Hillary ain’t no saint, but I disagree that, rhetorically speaking (the standard you agree to as well) her position puts you at a greater risk because of the findings of Dr. Pape tell me that OSB is safer than occupation in the long run. Remember, in your original post you set the timeline of 5 years and pointed out that this threat is not an emergency. If you are truly concerned about radical lunatics, over the long run Trump’s policy will create more of them according to Pape.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rich,

    I am not advocating that we "activate any war machine"!! Totally unfair; where did you get that? A threat (or warning) to any would-be invader or trespasser or terrorist that acts of violence will be met with equal violence in return is hardly the activation of any war machine. I'm curious. What the heck would you tell North Korea that just today released a propaganda video about a possible nuclear attack on Washington, D.C.? A deterrent "in the short run"...I'll take that with rouge states like North Korea. Further, I don't support troops on the ground (so stop linking me with that) and, for accuracy, I don't believe that Trump said he would put troops on the ground. I believe he said that he would "consider" putting troops on the ground. Still a mistake, but not at all the "occupation" scenerio that you present.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dominick,

      Why not follow the advice of Ron Paul, which I have quoted above twice. Notice he acknowledges the presence of a radical threat, just like you do when he says, “I think that is a big myth…that disgruntled, violent jihadists want to come and kill us. They do- but, the fraud in this…is that they want to do it because we are free and we are prosperous and they resent us. Well, I don’t believe that for a minute that that is the reason…they have to think about the reflection of the foreign policy that we have and that, of course, is the major reason.” But his conclusion is different, “’Doing it by the force of arms won’t work, that’s a myth…the more we do that, the worse we get- we get poorer and less free constantly’.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UDf8du8ytE&feature=youtu.be&t=731

      If it were up to me, like Paul, I would change the US government’s foreign policy to one of non-intervention. But, as we all know, and you stated earlier- it isn’t up to me. My view is that it shouldn’t be up to anyone, yours is that the US government should threaten to nuke, or nuke another regime on my behalf. Is this not activating the war machine? Why should libertarians support the State taking this role?

      “A deterrent "in the short run"...I'll take that with rouge states like North Korea. Further, I don't support troops on the ground (so stop linking me with that) and, for accuracy, I don't believe that Trump said he would put troops on the ground. I believe he said that he would "consider" putting troops on the ground. Still a mistake, but not at all the "occupation" scenerio that you present.”

      Trump is quoted in the original article above saying this, ““Any place where they have oil, I would knock the hell out of ‘em, and I would put boots on the ground in those areas; I would take the oil.” After this post, I will put a few more that you should certainly read if you have any doubt left regarding Trump’s position on this point. (Spoiler alert—it gets worse!)

      If we are to go off of rhetoric, it is my prediction, based on recent experience, that Trump’s policy would have the US government in a quagmire and end up occupying the area it invades. Thus, based on Pape’s analysis (are you going to acknowledge this?), the Trump policy is very dangerous- exactly what causes radicalization. I would not, as a libertarian, want to be associated with Trump’s policy on ISIS.

      I would also not want to be associated with Trump’s policy toward North Korea. He hints at assassination:

      ““I would get China to make that guy disappear in one form or another very quickly,”

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/10/donald-trump-wants-china-to-make-north-koreas-kim-jong-un-disappear/

      And he is not just going to utilize the nukes of the US government, but it appears “we” (or someone; perhaps they will build it for us?) are going to nuclearize Japan and South Korea (Are you enjoying the foreign policy car on the Trump train, yet?):

      “In perhaps his most detailed explanation yet about his foreign policy plans if he were to be elected president, Mr Trump told a US newspaper that allowing the two countries to do this would reduce pressure on the US to come to their defence every time North Korea acted aggressively.

      ‘There’ll be a point at which we’re just not going to be able to do it any more. Now, does that mean nuclear? It could mean nuclear,’ Mr Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, told the New York Times.
      ‘Would I rather have North Korea have [nuclear weapons] with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that’s the case,’ Mr Trump said. ‘If Japan had that nuclear threat, I’m not sure that would be a bad thing for us.’”

      Should the libertarian support the US government being actively engaged in building an arsenal of nukes for other nations as Trump outlined recently?

      Delete
    2. Another “boots” citation:

      “On defeating Islamic State militants, Trump said the key is to take away their wealth by taking back the oil fields under their control in Iraq. Told by ‘Meet the Press’ host Chuck Todd that such a move could require ground troops, Trump responded, ‘That’s OK.’”

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trumps-foreign-policy-platform-includes-boots-ground-isis/


      “We” will need tens of thousands of troops on the ground, according to Trump:

      “’We really have no choice,’ Trump said. ‘We have to knock out ISIS. We have to knock the hell out of them. We have to get rid of it and then we have to come back here and rebuild our country, which is falling apart.’
      Radio host Hugh Hewitt pressed on specific numbers.
      ‘I would listen to the generals,’ Trump said, ‘but I would – I’m hearing numbers of 20 to 30,000. We have to knock them out fast.’
      http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/11/trump-well-need-tens-of-thousands-of-boots-on-the-ground-to-crush-isis/


      Furthermore, Trump says “we” need to force Saudi Arabia to dedicate “boots on the ground”, as well. And, no more oil from the Saudi’s either (in other words, trade war—intervention begets intervention):

      “On no longer buying oil from Saudi Arabia until they put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS:

      MAGGIE HABERMAN: Mr. Trump, you have talked about your plans to defeat ISIS, and how you would approach it. Would you be willing to stop buying oil from the Saudis if they’re unwilling to go in and help?

      SANGER: On the ground?

      TRUMP: Oh yeah, sure. I would do that."

      http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-says-he-would-stop-buying-oil-from-saudi-arabia-if-they-dont-fight-isis-and-more/


      Do you need any further evidence that Trump would put boots on the ground? Does his clear intention to do so change your opinion and make you reconsider supporting Trump in his approach to ISIS?

      Delete