Lovers of Liberty, free markets and rational thinking lost one of their own this week. Harry Browne, libertarian candidate for president in '96 and '00, died yesterday. Here is one of his last columns.

Quote :

"The War Against Strawmen a.k.a. "The War on Terrorism" by Harry Browne December 13, 2005 The Bush Administration continues to maintain that its war in Iraq, and its adventures anywhere else, are aimed at ending worldwide terrorism. But such a feat is not only impossible, it is absurd. Terrorism is a crime, not a war. Terrorism is committed by gangs of criminals — not soldiers representing a sovereign government. And no one in his right mind can believe that our government can eliminate every criminal gang in the world. If our government could do that, why wouldn’t it start with the drug gangs that terrorize areas of Washington, D.C.? What a perfect opportunity for the politicians to demonstrate their crime-fighting abilities. On October 4, 2001, I wrote: Because the September attacks were a crime, the government's job is to locate and bring to trial any perpetrators who didn't die in the attacks. If some of them are located in foreign countries, our government should request extradition — not threaten to bomb the foreign country if we don't get our way. I was criticized by some people, who asked, "But what if all the ‘criminals’ aren’t caught" And yet, here we are four years later, tens of thousands of people have died, and still not all the criminals have been caught regardless. Osama Bin Laden not only hasn’t been apprehended, he isn’t even talked about anymore. As I said in 2001: If not all the criminals are found and brought to trial, it doesn't mean that bombing innocent people would have brought the criminals to justice. So why do the politicians talk about a War on Terrorism that makes no sense? Because it opens the door to all sorts of aggressions against foreigners and Americans. And it allows the politicians — most notably the leading members of the Bush administration — to pose as noble warriors against enemies that are really only Strawmen. Charley Reese, in a recent LewRockwell.com article, quoted Dick Cheney as claiming a U.S. pullout from Iraq would leave it in the hands of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Osama Bin Laden, and/or Ayman al-Zawahiri. Charley points out that "Zarqawi is a Jordanian, not an Iraqi; he has been denounced by his tribe and his family; and he has killed more Iraqis than Americans. It is just a matter of time before some Iraqi drops a dime on him and he’s packed off to Islamic hell." But he’s a worthy Strawman, a bogey man, whose name is worth a hundred million dollars or more in Congressional appropriations. Charley goes on, "As for bin Laden and his Egyptian adviser, they are — assuming they’re still alive — hiding out in some cave or rat-infested village in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They could not control a small town, much less a country of 25 million people of which neither of them is a native." As we all know, the U.S. government has since World War II been financing and arming various foreign dictators — such as Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, the Shah of Iran, and others — only to denounce and attack them once they become wealthy and aggressive enough to be worthy Strawmen. It’s also true that the U.S. government has financed and armed various opposition groups that supposedly represent the opportunity to topple the mean old dictators. Often these groups oppose each other, and engage in violence against one another. But no matter, the object of our government is to be doing something to fight a Strawman. Robert Dreyfuss, in another excellent LewRockwell.com article, catalogs a number of the groups that opposed Saddam Hussein and are now battling for control of Iraq. There is far more than the Iraqi National Congress. The strongest groups are SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution), Al Dawa (The Islamic Call), SCIRI’s paramilitary arm, the Badr Brigade, the Muslim Brotherhood , represented by IIP (the Iraqi Islamic Party) — not to mention Al-Qaeda. The first three originated and are based in — guess where — Iran. In fact, SCIRI was founded in 1982 by Ayatollah Khomeini. Today these groups are fighting each other as much as they’re fighting Iraqi insurgents, Americans, or Iraqi civilians. They regularly practice torture, assassinations, and other dastardly deeds upon one another. They are fighting to become the rulers of the new Iraq — the "democracy" that George Bush claims to be creating. Is this what 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for? Is this what $200 billion dollars has financed? Is this why we have given up so much of our freedom? And whoever wins the battle to rule Iraq will eventually become Strawmen against whom the Bush administration can get on its horses and ride off to protect us. There is no War on Terrorism. There is only a War on Strawmen, a War on Shadows, a War on Fantasies — allowing George Bush to do whatever he, or his advisors, choose to do. It is time to quit pretending that the War in Iraq serves any purpose relating to world peace, democracy in the Middle East, the first line against terrorism, or any other salutary goal. It is simply part of the War on Strawmen."

If you're interested in some of his other writings check out http://www.harrybrowne.org/

3/3/2006 10:36:42 AM

sounds like pre-911 thinking to me. 911 changed everything.

3/3/2006 10:48:36 AM

^


Harry Browne deserves two threads.

3/3/2006 10:50:25 AM

looks like we have two freedom haters here.

stop bad-mouthing our brave fireman.

3/3/2006 10:51:33 AM

I’m not convinced that the US funds particular foreigners just to build them up as good strawmen for attack. Goals & policies change over time, and the people we’ve given money to change over time.

I found the idea of treating this as a criminal prosecution on terror, rather than a war on terror more interesting than the strawmen stuff. We expect criminal prosecution to be a continuing part of our government, but we don’t expect wars to be endless… which is the only thing that abstract wars can be. I do find the idea that wars should be against other states (rather than ideas like the war on drugs) to be somewhat appealing.

If we changed to a criminal prosecution on terror, rather than a war on terror, we would still have to make the criminal prosecution more powerful for dealing with criminals hiding in other countries. But it might lead to less civil liberty restrictions than does an endless war that needs alot of civil liberty restrictions to make the war more effective.

3/3/2006 10:57:47 AM

Quote :

"Goals & policies change over time, and the people we’ve given money to change over time. "

..which is exactly why we shouldn't be doing this. We have a pretty poor track record of propping up brutal dictators. Predictably, these guys get out of hand and we have to replace them with another brutal dictator. Then we scratch our heads and wonder why people in other countries don't love us.

Quote :

"...criminal prosecution on terror, rather than a war on terror more interesting "

I agree. But I doubt this will happen if you believe that the War on Terror is only being used by politicians to gain more power and control over us.

Quote :

"stop bad-mouthing our brave fireman."

Josh, I'm not sophisticated enough to figure this out. What are you trying to say?

3/3/2006 11:27:45 AM

Quote :

"As we all know, the U.S. government has since World War II been financing and arming various foreign dictators — such as Saddam Hussein, Manuel Noriega, the Shah of Iran, and others — only to denounce and attack them once they become wealthy and aggressive enough to be worthy Strawmen."

So basically, this guy is arguing that the US governments sole purpose in foreign policy is to fund and prop up brutal dictators so that our war machine will have the opportunity to be called into action and the current political leaders will get to promote themselves as heroes?


I like the ideas that Libertarians embody for the most part, but this is idiotic and takes away credibility from their cause. If the Libertarian Party weren't against military power, they may actually be able to garner votes from rational people. It sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

3/3/2006 3:46:47 PM

Quote :

"stop bad-mouthing our brave fireman."

Colbert Report?

3/3/2006 3:50:43 PM

Quote :

"the US governments sole purpose in foreign policy is to fund and prop up brutal dictators "

I don't think that is the goal, but it is the unintended result of our actions however noble the underlying motivation.

As a libertarian, I am very pro-military. I want us to have the type of military that scares the crap out of would-be aggressors. Wanting smaller government and a strong defense are not at odds in my book. The temptation we have to avoid is the desire to use the military for no good reason.

The other side of having a good defense is to avoid giving others a reason to attack us. This is where our foreign policy history has really failed.

Quote :

"Colbert Report?"

I must've missed that one.

3/3/2006 9:00:03 PM

Didn't he say that in response to David Cross at some point?

3/3/2006 9:13:46 PM

Anti-libertarians like to point out that if firefighters were privatized, you might not have one in your neighborhood......or something

(like everything would be privatized overnight....... )

3/3/2006 10:40:53 PM

Quote :

"The strongest groups are SCIRI (the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution), Al Dawa (The Islamic Call), SCIRI’s paramilitary arm, the Badr Brigade, the Muslim Brotherhood , represented by IIP (the Iraqi Islamic Party) — not to mention Al-Qaeda..... Today these groups are fighting each other as much as they’re fighting Iraqi insurgents, Americans, or Iraqi civilians. They regularly practice torture, assassinations, and other dastardly deeds upon one another. They are fighting to become the rulers of the new Iraq — the "democracy" that George Bush claims to be creating. Is this what 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for? Is this what $200 billion dollars has financed? Is this why we have given up so much of our freedom?"

"Fool me once, shame on me
Fool me twice, you you cant get fooled again."





[Edited on March 3, 2006 at 11:19 PM. Reason : .]

3/3/2006 11:08:24 PM

it would be better for EarthDogg is saddam were back in power

3/3/2006 11:11:58 PM

^
Shirley, you jest!

3/5/2006 9:30:02 PM