Ron Paul on Israel

In this video, Ron Paul talks about Israel and Gaza:



Two things:

First, it's appalling that he'd speak to the state-controlled Iranian television at all. By doing that, he sanctions a repressive dictatorship and avowed enemy of the United States.

Second, he's not just saying that we shouldn't be meddling in Israel's problems but instead leave her to manage her own self-defense as she sees fit. He explicitly criticizes Israel on moral grounds, citing her as the aggressor in the conflict, and he sides with the Palestinian terrorists.

Oy vey.

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy

Recently, I spent some time watching videos of Ron Paul speaking on foreign policy, particularly Iran. Ever since my webcast discussion of his views, I've wanted take a closer look, because my sense is that his views are not merely mistaken, but reveal some deep error in his principles.

In a recent editorial -- What Ron Paul Thinks of America -- Dorothy Rabinowitz writes:

Ron Paul's efforts on behalf of Iran's right to the status of misunderstood victim continued apace. On the Hannity show following the debate, Dr. Paul urged the host to understand that Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had never mentioned any intention of wiping Israel off the map. It was all a mistranslation, he explained. What about Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust? A short silence ensued as the candidate stared into space. He moved quickly on to a more secure subject. "They're just defending themselves," he declared.

So is that a fair recap of his views? Well, you can see for yourself in the following videos.

(1) Iowa GOP Debate: 11 Aug 2011



(2) Ron Paul with Sean Hannity: 22 Sep 2011



(3) Ron Paul with Sean Hannity: 15 Oct 2011 (?)



(4) Ron Paul on Fox News Sunday: 6 Nov 2011 (?)



(5) GOP Debate: 15 Dec 2011



(6) Ron Paul with Sean Hannity: 15 Dec 2011



So what do I think of all that? Oy, that's a bit hard to untangle. Mostly, however, I see deep-rooted moral equivalence.

Ron Paul flatly refuses to draw any distinction between (mostly) free countries like the US and Israel and repressive dictatorial theocracies like Iran. He seems to think that every government is legitimate, including governments run by batshit-crazy terrorists who repress their own citizens and threaten their own neighbors. Hence, he supposes, every regime is entitled to defend itself against its perceived enemies, including with nuclear weapons.

That basic view -- that moral equivalence between nations -- is why Ron Paul repeatedly stresses the sheer number of nukes possessed by various countries -- without any regard for the principles, policies, or even sanity of the regime. That's also why he regards Iran has having just as much right to the "respect" afforded to nuclear regimes as does Israel. Perhaps worse, he can't even fathom that Iran might be allah-crazy enough use nuclear weapons offensively against other nations (i.e. Israel, then America). He's not just ignorant of that possibility: he's willfully blind to it.

Ultimately, the serious threat posed by Iran and other totalitarian Islamic regimes could easily become reality under any Ron Paul presidency. He would open the door to the slew of state-sponsored terrorist groups seeking to destroy America and establish a global caliphate. As I said in my webcast discussion, if you think that Obama can destroy the economy with more controls, you're right... but just think about the economic devastation inflicted by a nuke in Manhattan. Iran doesn't need a land army to do that -- just the nuclear weapons that Ron Paul urges us to permit Iran to develop.

Contrary to Ron Paul's moral equivance in foreign policy, other nations ought to be judged based on their respect for rights. A nation that respects rights is not a threat to other free nations -- and likely would be an ally. Dictatorial nations must be clearly identified as such, then monitored for threats. Serious threats should be swiftly and decisively eliminated. Ron Paul will not do that, not because the threats don't exist, but because he refuses to see them.

Even when military action would not be proper, dictatorial regimes should be identified as morally illegitimate, clearly and forthrightly. Any American president with a shred of love for liberty ought to say to despots, "Your regime is despotic and vicious. Your power is unjustly obtained and unjustly exercised. Your citizens, if they value their lives, ought to rise up in revolt, then establish a constitutional government based on the principles of individual rights." Ron Paul won't do that, not even to Iran, because he doesn't draw moral distinctions between nations.

What will Ron Paul do instead? He suggests that America befriend Iran, a barbaric theocracy openly seeking to destroy us. After all, he says, we used diplomacy with the USSR and China, so why not use it with Iran? Basically, he wants America to adopt a stance of weakness and cowardice -- even now, while the threat is merely potential and could be defused at minimal risk to American lives.

Ron Paul's views on these matters are so fantastically twisted that I can't even regard them as any kind of "foreign policy." He's willfully blind to the proper moral principles and to the basic facts -- and hence, he would be the best possible ally of our sworn enemies. Although I'm far more concerned about domestic than foreign policy in this election, Ron Paul's foreign policy is so bad as to disqualify him, in my view. America would not survive four years with him at the helm, I don't think.

Videos: An Early Look at the Election and GOP Candidates

In Sunday's Philosophy in Action Webcast, I took an early look at the 2012 election, then surveyed four GOP candidates -- Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson. I've posted all five questions as videos, and so here they are!

The first question was:

What's your view of the upcoming 2012 election? By what standards do you judge the presidential candidates?

My answer, in brief:

In a presidential candidate, I'm not looking for either John Galt or "Anyone But Obama." I'm looking for someone who will do more good than harm to the cause of liberty in America.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The second question was:

Should I support Mitt Romney for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Romney deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Mitt Romney is a smooth talker, but his proposal reveal that he has no understanding of individual rights or the economic problems facing America. He's no better than Obama – and likely worse, because the opposition will vanish. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The third question was:

Should I support Newt Gingrinch for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Gingrinch deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Newt Gingrich is explicitly theocratic, and a major threat to the separation of church and state. He advocates and practices "active governance," meaning right-wing social engineering, not liberty. Like Obama, he is enamored of bold transformative ideas, which could be okay or horrible for liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The fourth question was:

Should I support Ron Paul for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Paul deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election?

My answer, in brief:

Ron Paul is not even libertarian, but a neo-confederate conservative Christian, albeit with some grasp of basic economics. He's a rationalist, driven by ideology, and not open to facts. He would be very dangerous to elect as president, not just for actual policies, but as a supposed advocate of liberty. I cannot recommend voting for him in the primary or the general election.

Here's the video of my full answer:

The fifth question was:

Should I support Gary Johnson for US President? What's the proper evaluation of his principles and record on the budget and the debt, health care, foreign policy, immigration, the drug war, abortion, and gay marriage? Does Johnson deserve the vote of advocates of individual rights in the primary or the general election? Also, should supporters of Gary Johnson vote for him on a Libertarian Party ticket?

My answer, in brief:

Gary Johnson is not John Galt. However, he's fundamentally oriented toward facts, plus he has good basic principles about liberty. Alas, he was shut out from the race by the media and the establishment GOP. I recommend voting for him in the primary, as well as in the general election, if he runs as the Libertarian Party candidate. I still reject the Libertarian Party, but a protest vote can be delimited to endorse him and not the party.

Here's the video of my full answer:

If you enjoyed these video, please "like" them on YouTube and share them with friends in e-mail and social media! You can also throw a bit of extra love in our tip jar.

All posted webcast videos can be found in the Webcast Archives and on my YouTube channel.

Video: The Morality of Torturing Terrorists and Criminals

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I discussed the morality of torturing terrorists and criminals. The question was:

Is it moral to torture criminals and/or terrorists? We supposedly were able to track down Osama Bin Laden with information obtained by torturing captured Al Qaeda prisoners. Is it moral to torture criminals, terrorists or other evildoers to gain useful information to fight crime or help win a war? If so, should there be any limits on when and how torture should be used by the government?

Here's the video of my answer:

If you like it, please share it! Also, all my webcast and other videos can be found on my YouTube channel.

Law of Treason

Law professor Hanah Volokh kindly sent me the following about the law of treason yesterday, in response to my fumbling remarks in last Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast:

I was just listening to your Rationally Selfish Webcast that I missed last weekend. I'm not an expert in the law of treason, but I do know a little bit about it. Treason does not actually require a formal state of war or aid to a declared enemy in war.

Black's Law Dictionary, which is probably the most widely used legal dictionary, defines treason as "the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which one owes allegiance, either by making war against the state or by materially supporting its enemies."

The current federal statute criminalizing treason is 18 U.S.C. section 2381, and it reads, "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason . . . ."

Prosecution for things like espionage, terrorist acts, arson, sabotage, and conspiracy are much more common than for treason, though, even if the acts committed are technically within the definition of treason.

A person can commit treason by making war against the state in the absence of a pre-existing war. If you act to overthrow the government, that counts as treason. This idea was behind the actions taken against communists in the U.S. during the 1950s.

Confederate soldiers and government officials also committed treason against the United States even though it was not a declared war. The Confederacy took the legal position that secession was permitted and they were not treasonous because they no longer owed allegiance to the United States. The Union took the legal position that secession was not permitted and the military action was about restoring the union and putting down an illegal rebellion. After reunification, the Confederate soldiers and officials were considered to have committed treason, though the vast majority of them were pardoned.

Right now, America has many undeclared enemies, thanks to its weak and appeasing foreign policy. As a result, many actions that should be prosecuted as treasonous, such as inviting the heads of terrorist states to speak at universities -- are not subject to any kind of legal action. However, my question would be how "enemies" should be defined, given a proper foreign policy. Clearly, the category would include any states with which we're at war. As Hanah notes, people or groups attempting to wage war from within (or without) are also properly considered "enemies." Beyond that, I could only see that the term should apply to states that a reasonable person would understand to be committed to overthrowing the US government. For various reasons, it might not be worth waging war on such states -- perhaps they're so poor as to be unable to inflict damage and/or our military is occupied with a serious threat elsewhere. Nonetheless, it would be treason to assist their efforts.

Thoughts?

Biddle on the NYC Mosque

The Fall 2010 issue of The Objective Standard features a major new article by Craig Biddle, "The Ground Zero Mosque, the Spread of Islam, and How America Should Deal with Such Efforts".

Craig Biddle explains the crucial importance of recognizing that we are at war with a deadly enemy -- and the importance of defending America based on the principles of individual rights and the rue of law.

One key quote:

If we want to protect civilized society, we must unwaveringly uphold the principles of civilized society -- no matter how justifiably outraged we may become about the irrationalities and injustices perpetrated by our enemies. If, in an effort to stop Muslims from destroying America, we trample individual rights and the rule of law, we will have surrendered the very thing we were supposed to be fighting to protect.

Thank you, Craig, for a well-written and well-reasoned piece!

(The rest of the Fall 2010 lineup looks excellent as well.)

The Greater Danger: Islamic or Christian Dictatorship?

This video of Brigitte Gabriel discussing the barbarity of Islam has been making the rounds on blogs and social media recently:



(Note: This is a multi-part video series.)

Diana and I heard Brigitte Gabriel speak at the same LPR 2009 conference that Yaron Brook spoke at. She is a staunch Christian who took an uncompromising stand against the Islamic threat to America. She told some heart-rending stories of life as a Christian under Islamist rule in Lebanon. She made a compelling case that the Islamists want destroy America. And she had the mostly-conservative crowd eating out of her hand.

And she's just one of many eloquent Christian conservatives out there on the lecture circuit making their case against the Islamic threat -- and arguing that the only solution is for this country to recommit to Christian values.

For this reason, I regard her and her allies as a serious long-term danger to America, even though her criticisms of the barbarity of Islam are correct. She correctly identifies the current problem, but she also offers the wrong solution.

Let me explain why I regard the Christians as the greater long-term danger to America -- even while I also agree that the Islamists are the greater immediate short-term threat to this country.

Based on my reading of American culture and sense of life, I personally don't think this country can actually be conquered by the Islamists. Yes, the Islamists will try as hard as they can. And yes, they could do a tremendous amount of damage (with more 9/11-style attacks or worse). And yes, they could kill many Americans in the process. But they couldn't actually take over and impose Sharia law on us.

There's still a general "ornery streak" alive and well amongst many Americans that would reject any such an attempt to subjugate us to Sharia law. Many Americans would fight back by any means necessary -- especially in the much-maligned "Red states" where that ornery streak runs deep and where the populace is well-armed.

(This is in contrast to Europe, where I think many of those countries could fall under Sharia law due to their internal weaknesses).

But I do think that if the Islamists successfully committed more major terrorist attacks on US soil, it would arouse a backlash by decent Americans seeking some kind of forceful response. Conservatives like Brigitte Gabriel would exploit this and use pro-American rhetoric to rouse Americans against the Islamists. And this breed of conservatives might even implement a somewhat better foreign policy, at least for a while.

But they also would couple that with appeals to Christianity, sacrifice, faith, etc. -- all in the name of being "pro-America". Those are the sorts of appeals that the neocons, John McCain, and other bad conservatives have been making for many years -- and which would strike a renewed chord in an America shaken up by a string of deadly attacks at home and abroad. Americans would likely reject our current policy of appeasement (correctly seeing it as having weakened this country), but would instead embrace an even worse nationalism. And without a firm commitment to individual rights, any new conservative nationalist government would very likely impose a variety of "emergency" measures that might be superficially reasonable (and might even be appropriate in short-term wartime settings), but would somehow never be repealed.

If dictatorship ever comes to America, it won't be an Islamist one. Instead, it will more likely be a Christian one, but one which would arise as a direct result of our current weak approach to the real and immediate Islamist threats. Furthermore, such a Christianist regime could gain traction here in a way that an Islamist regime never could because the Christianist regime would have a superficially "pro-American" veneer.

Tellingly, polls taken in the past few years show the following:

• 78% of Americans identify themselves as Christians
  
• One-third of Americans believe the Bible is literally true
  
• 67% of Americans say this country is a "Christian nation"

Given these facts, I think a Christian dictatorship could appeal to many Americans in a time of crisis, especially if it came to power on a platform of fighting back against the Islamists -- and if it were viewed as the only moral alternative to the policies of appeasement and secularism that allowed such attacks to happen in the first place.

Hence, it's critical to both oppose the immediate and serious Islamist danger, but also be alert to the Christian totalitarian threat.

Back in 1980, many Americans (correctly) recognized the USSR as a threat, but also thought that we could use the Islamist mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan as allies against the communists. Of course today the USSR is no more, but the Islamists are now a real danger to us in a way that few (myself included) anticipated 30 years ago.

But as more conservatives start speaking out against Islam, I want to highlight the importance of closely examining what they stand for in addition to what they are against.

And on a positive note, I also wanted to highlight the importance of offering Americans an alternative principled self-interested approach to foreign policy that doesn't rely on appeals to faith, altruism, and sacrifice. Fortunately, we have such an approach to offer. Let's hope our message reaches enough Americans before it's too late.

Hsieh AT OpEd: The Real Problem Is Not The Mosque But The Nukes

The August 17, 2010 American Thinker has published another one of my OpEds, this time on foreign policy:

"The Real Problem Is Not the Mosque But the Nukes"

My theme is the NYC Mosque would become a non-issue if the US would adopt a proper foreign policy, explicit identify our enemy, and take the necessary action against Islamic Totalitarianism and its primary state sponsor Iran.

I also cite and quote John Lewis' article from The Objective Standard, "No Substitute for Victory': The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism".

Here is the opening of my piece:

All the energy devoted to this issue of the Ground Zero Mosque is distracting us from the far more serious problem of Iran's nuclear weapons program. If this more fundamental problem is properly addressed, then the NYC mosque issue will become irrelevant. Conversely, if America doesn't deal with this more fundamental problem, then any legal or political maneuvers to stop the NYC mosque -- even if successful -- will make little difference in the long run.

Opponents of the mosque argue that allowing its construction near the ruins of the World Trade Center would symbolize America's weakness and would embolden anti-American, anti-Western Islamists around the world. While true, the reason why America is perceived as weak against the Islamists is because we are. And nothing illustrates this more than our current policy (or lack thereof) toward Iran's nuclear program...

(Read the full text of "The Real Problem Is Not the Mosque But the Nukes".)

How To Truly Honor Our Soldiers

While on vacation recently in New York City, Diana and I attended a nice get-together with some local Objectivists. That evening, we had the pleasure of chatting with another Objectivist visiting NYC who was also an active-duty officer in the US Army.

Because I don't want him to get into trouble with his superiors, I'll refer to him by the pseudonym of "Xavier" or "X".

"Xavier" is a captain in the US Army. He commands an armor (i.e., tank) company, in charge of over 90 soldiers. He participated in the initial invasion of Iraq that overthrew Saddam Hussein, and he has served 3 tours in Iraq. He is currently stationed in the US, but will likely be deployed next to Afghanistan.

Based on his experience, he confirmed several of the points that writers such as Elan Journo and John Lewis have repeatedly made. According to Captain X:

1) If the US military were left free to do its job, they could eliminate the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism in very short order. The US military has the technological and physical capabilities to easily win the war.

2) As one example what our military is capable of, the invasion of Iraq and the breathtakingly swift overthrow of Saddam Hussein illustrates one brief episode when our soldiers were left relatively free to operate as they should.

3) The biggest obstacle to winning the war is our civilian leadership. The failure of our political leaders to correctly identify the enemy and take appropriate action to defeat them places our soldiers in an untenable position where they are not allowed to win.

4) One egregious example of our civilian leaders handcuffing our soldiers is their imposition of contradictory rules of engagement. Our soldiers are told that they are allowed to defend themselves from attack. But if they fire at an enemy fighter who isn't clearly holding a weapon, then they could be punished for using excessive force. Soldiers are thus always forced to second-guess themselves while in combat, for fear of legal repercussions afterwards.

Despite all this, Captain X plans on making a career in the military. He loves this country, he loves his job, and he regards military service as a noble profession. He and most American soldiers want to defend our country, and they want to do what it takes to defeat our enemies.

To the extent that our civilian leaders prevent them from doing that and instead waste their capacities in various altruistic and/or "humanitarian" missions, they are merely placing these brave soldiers' lives at risk in a form of useless sacrifice.

As Alex Epstein wrote in his recent Memorial Day piece, "What We Owe Our Soldiers":

Every Memorial Day, we pay tribute to the American men and women who have died in combat. With speeches and solemn ceremonies, we recognize their courage and valor. But one fact goes unacknowledged in our Memorial Day tributes: all too many of our soldiers have died unnecessarily — because they were sent to fight for a purpose other than America's freedom.

Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen deserve better than this.

Because of their position as active-duty soldiers, men like Captain X can't freely speak out and criticize the policies of their civilian political superiors.

But we can.

If we wish to truly honor the men and women who are selfishly risking their lives to protect their (and our) freedoms, those of us who are able to speak out should.

We should demand that our government pursue a rational foreign policy based on defending American self-interest. We should demand that our leaders explicitly identify Islamic Totalitarianism as the enemy and that they explicitly pursue the goal of overwhelming victory over that enemy. And we should demand that our military be allowed to achieve that victory by all necessary means.

In short, we must exercise the precious freedoms (such as freedom of speech) that prior generations of soldiers have fought and died for, and use those freedoms to defend the ability of the current generation of soldiers who are now fighting (and dying) to preserve them. That's in our self-interest as Americans — and a matter of simple justice towards those serving in our military.

Our battle won't be with bullets and artillery shells, but rather with ideas.

If you need "intellectual ammunition" for this fight, the following articles and books make a good starting point, both to read and to recommend to friends, family, and elected officials:

"Just War Theory" vs. American Self-Defense
Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein
The Objective Standard, Spring 2006

"No Substitute for Victory": The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism
John Lewis
The Objective Standard, Winter 2006-2007

America's Self-Crippled Foreign Policy
An Interview with Yaron Brook, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein
The Objective Standard, Fall 2009

Winning the Unwinnable War
Edited by Elan Journo

Nothing Less than Victory
John Lewis

Although I regard President Ronald Reagan as a very mixed politician, I agree with this quote:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Are we willing to fight for that freedom? The choice is ours.

(Also cross-posted to CapMag.)

The Soft-Spoken Genocidal Muslim at UCSD

This video -- particularly the last few seconds -- contains the most chilling exchange I've ever watched. It's David Horowitz drawing out a soft-spoken female student from UCSD... who also happens to be a Jew-hating, Hitler-admiring, lustfully genocidal Muslim.



She ought to be expelled from the university, as a threat to safety. No professor should be willing to have her in class, nor should any student be willing to sit in the same room as her.

If she's not a citizen, she ought to be expelled from the United States -- immediately -- as a threat to national security. If she is a citizen, she ought to be closely watched by the government for any sign of or association with terrorists, then charged and imprisoned accordingly. Anything less -- which is what I expect, sadly -- would be a shameful failure to defend America against its sworn enemies.

(Via Adam Mossoff, who said, "This girl is so soft-spoken about expressing her support of global genocide of Jews, it's like watching a clip from the Nuremburg trials in which the Nazis plainly described their atrocities as if this was no different to them from describing a trip to the beach (and it wasn't).")

Brook and Jones Foreign Policy Roundup on PJTV

The April 12, 2010 edition of PJTV includes a good discussion of the latest Obama Administration foreign policy missteps by Yaron Brook and Terry Jones:



Both Jones and Brook emphasized the importance of properly identifying the enemy (rather than hiding behind vacuous terms such as "war on terror" or "war on violent extremism").

As Jones said, properly naming the enemy is important in order to be (1) truthful to yourself, and (2) getting your policy right. And Brook noted that without properly identifying the enemy, you cannot win. In essence, Obama (and Bush before him) has committed America to not winning.

They also covered America's new nuclear policy (or non-policy), our fraying relations with our allies, the emboldening of our enemies, and the long-term implications for America.

I highly recommend watching the whole thing.

For positive alternatives to our current failing foreign policy, read John Lewis' Nothing Less Than Victory and Elan Journo's Winning the Unwinnable War.

A World without Nuclear Weapons?

In the Fall 2009 issue of Daedalus, economist Thomas Schelling asks what would happen if President Obama had his way and we had a "A World Without Nuclear Weapons?"

Schelling argues that, contrary to the optimists like Obama, the world would become far more unstable and dangerous.

One big problem is that the knowledge of how to create and deploy nuclear weapons wouldn't disappear. Hence, if the major nuclear powers did decide to eliminate their active stockpiles, any global crisis would create a tremendous incentive for them to reconstitute and/or use their nukes as quickly as possible before hostile countries did the same.

Here are a couple of noteworthy excerpts from Schelling's article:

Considering that enough plutonium to make a bomb could be hidden in the freezing compartment of my refrigerator, or to evade radiation detection could be hidden at the bottom of the water in a well, I think only the fear of a whistle-blower could possibly make success at all questionable.

I believe that a "responsible" government would make sure that fissile material would be available in an international crisis or war itself. A responsible government must at least assume that other responsible governments will do so.

The natural implication:

...[I]f, at the outset of what appears to be a major war, or the imminent possibility of major war, every responsible government must consider that other responsible governments will mobilize their nuclear weapons base as soon as war erupts, or as soon as war appears likely, there will be at least covert frantic efforts, or perhaps purposely conspicuous efforts, to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons as rapidly as possible.

The result would be greater global instability, rather than greater stability:

In summary, a "world without nuclear weapons" would be a world in which the United States, Russia, Israel, China, and half a dozen or a dozen other countries would have hair-trigger mobilization plans to rebuild nuclear weapons and mobilize or commandeer delivery systems, and would have prepared targets to preempt other nations' nuclear facilities, all in a high-alert status, with practice drills and secure emergency communications. Every crisis would be a nuclear crisis, any war could become a nuclear war. The urge to preempt would dominate ; whoever gets the first few weapons will coerce or preempt. It would be a nervous world.

Part of the fallacy behind the desire for a "world without nuclear weapons" is the false notion that the evil resides within the weapons, rather than within the aggressors who would use them against us. (This is just a grander example of the same fallacy that drives many gun-control advocates.)

If a US President truly wanted a safer world, perhaps he should eliminate America's enemies, rather than eliminating our means of striking against them.

(Link to the Schelling article via Marginal Revolution.)

Nothing Less Than Victory

Check out the endorsement John Lewis has gotten from Victor Davis Hanson for his soon-forthcoming book, Nothing Less than Victory:

John David Lewis has offered a superb appraisal of how ancient and modern wars start and finish. This chronicle of some 2,500 years of Western history is replete with a philosophical analysis of why nations fight, win--and lose. His insights and conclusions are original and fearless--as well as timely and welcome in the confused war-making of the present age."

-- Victor Davis Hanson, author of Carnage and Culture

If you haven't yet heard about the book, here's the description from John Lewis' web site:

The goal of a war is to defeat an enemy's will to fight. But how this can be accomplished is a thorny issue. Nothing Less than Victory provocatively shows that aggressive, strategic military offenses can win wars and establish lasting peace, while defensive maneuvers have often led to prolonged carnage, indecision, and stalemate. Taking an ambitious and sweeping look at six major wars, from antiquity to World War II, John David Lewis shows how victorious military commanders have achieved long-term peace by identifying the core of the enemy's ideological, political, and social support for a war, fiercely striking at this objective, and demanding that the enemy acknowledges its defeat.

Lewis examines the Greco-Persian and Theban wars, the Second Punic War, Aurelian's wars to reunify Rome, the American Civil War, and the Second World War. He considers successful examples of overwhelming force, such as the Greek mutilation of Xerxes' army and navy, the Theban-led invasion of the Spartan homeland, and Hannibal's attack against Italy--as well as failed tactics of defense, including Fabius's policy of delay, McClellan's retreat from Richmond, and Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. Lewis shows that a war's endurance rests in each side's reasoning, moral purpose, and commitment to fight, and why an effectively aimed, well-planned, and quickly executed offense can end a conflict and create the conditions needed for long-term peace.

Recognizing the human motivations behind military conflicts, Nothing Less than Victory makes a powerful case for offensive actions in pursuit of peace.

John David Lewis is visiting associate professor of philosophy, politics, and economics at Duke University, and senior research scholar in history and classics at the Social Philosophy and Policy Center at Bowling Green State University. He is the author of Solon the Thinker: Political Thought in Archaic Athens and Early Greek Lawgivers.

The book is due out in March. On the advice of John Lewis, I recommend that you order the book from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. The publisher will take note of even a few dozen copies sold from that source.

Israel and the Media

Mike Janis posted the following to FRODO, Front Range Objectivism's discussion list on Tuesday. I thought it deserved a wider audience, so I'm reposting it here, with his permission:

The news coverage of the current conflict in the Middle East says a lot about the state of our culture, especially considering that the news agencies, being businesses, cater their stories to their audiences.

I'm looking at today's story on MSNBC.com, U.N. official: 'There's nowhere safe in Gaza'.

First of all, the tone makes it sound like the evil empire is closing in on the helpless, innocent rebels (made me think of Star Wars). "Tanks rumbled closer to the towns of Khan Younis and Dir el Balah in south and central Gaza but were still several miles outside..."

Second, is it the U.N.'s official job to tally the civilian casualties? It seems that whenever the U.N. is mentioned, it's so they can mention how many 'innocent' Palestinians are being killed. "More than 500 Palestinians have been killed, including more than 100 civilians, according to United Nations figures."

Third, they can't seem to mention enough that Israel isn't bowing to international pressure for cease-fire. "Israel, which has already encircled Gaza City, the area's biggest city, ignored mounting international calls for an immediate cease-fire." Why are 'international calls' so quick to support the aggressors?

And lastly, if the article doesn't get its point across with words, there are two links to slide shows with pictures of injured Palestinians and international protestors (most appear to be Muslim, and there's even a picture of Muslim children in France standing next to a sign proclaiming Israel to be the terrorist nation).

I recently read William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus for Victory by John Lewis in the The Objective Standard, Vol 1, No 2 and highly recommend it for anyone else who needs to hear a rational and sane voice about the moral duties/rights of a nation under attack and the role of civilian casualties.

Thank you, Mike!

Hamas: The Big Bully on the Playground

Thirteen-year-old Gaza resident, Yousef Nakhala, called out the equivalent of "the Emperor has no clothes!" in reaction to Israel's retaliation against Hamas's rocket attacks from Gaza. He said: "I blame Hamas. It doesn't want to recognize Israel. If they did so, there could be peace. Egypt made a peace treaty with Israel, and nothing is happening to them."

The kid clearly gets it. But not the civilized world, which has told Israel to hold back, like the platitudinous let's-just-all-hold-hands-and-get-along from the E.U. Foreign Policy chief, Javier Solana: "We are very concerned at the events in Gaza. We call for an immediate ceasefire and urge everybody to exert maximum restraint."

Oh wow, what a clever suggestion.

Not wanting to piss off anyone else on the playground, the U.S.'s policy is just as morally neutral: "Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people. The United States urges Israel to avoid civilian casualties as it targets Hamas in Gaza." (White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe)

Just like a spoiled brat, Hamas is getting exactly what it wants -- more pity and attention from the Arab and Islamic world:

"Iran strongly condemns the Zionist regime's [Israel's] wide-ranging attacks against the civilians in Gaza. The raids against innocent people are unforgivable and unacceptable." (Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hasan Qashqavi)

"Egypt condemns the Israeli attacks." (Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak)

"We are facing a continuing spectacle which has been carefully planned. We face a major humanitarian catastrophe." (Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa)

Oh, give me a break. Hamas doesn't have anything to offer the world -- or the Palestinians for that matter -- except the perpetual state of hate and poverty of its population. But what else could you possibly expect from the efforts of an avowed terrorist organization?

When Hamas, also known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, won the majority in the Palestinian Authority's parliamentary elections in 2006, the governing Fatah party and the world wondered what this would mean for future peace negotiations with Israel, a two-state solution called the "road map" which would create an independent Palestine alongside Israel.

Hamas wants to kick Israel off the playground. It explicitly does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, and it has carried out terrorist attacks against Israel for decades.

Even though the Middle East quartet's (U.N., E.U., Russia, U.S.) price for bankrolling the Palestinian government is peaceful behavior towards Israel, Hamas leaders couldn't care less. Hamas attacked Israel and forcibly seized control of Gaza in a very undemocratic fashion within a year after its election victory, leading to an economic blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt.

A bully is still a bully if it behaves like one, even though he gets elected to student council. Now maybe Israel can put the bully in his place, having learned lessons from its anemic response to Hezbollah's repeated aggression in Lebanon in 2006 which only emboldened that Islamic fundamentalist organization.

In the whole long-running and complex Israeli-Palestinian conflict, why is it in America's best interest to condemn an organization like Hamas and support Israel? The principle is that the only moral government is one that upholds individual rights.

In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I think the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights applies this principle well:

We recognize that those who attack Israel are not seeking to establish an even freer nation: they are seeking to wipe out the only outpost of freedom in the Middle East. We support Israel not for its failings but for its virtues, and we understand that those who threaten Israel's freedom also threaten America's. If they succeed in destroying Israel, they will turn their full attention to the United States.

The bully Hamas has no intention of playing nice, and should be expelled. Israel ought to continue fighting hard and eliminate Hamas. And instead of cowardly giving in to intimidation from the U.N. and Arab/Islamic countries by calling for yet another cease-fire, the civilized world should give unqualified support for Israel in the face of this chronic Islamic threat. Hamas, and the civilian population who elects and supports it, should suffer the painful consequences of their ongoing war against freedom -- and peace.

There Are A Lot Of People In China

Today's Eric Daniels-type bit of trivia comes from Strange Maps":

China is the world's most populous nation. That much anybody knows. But even if we know a bit more (that the number of Chinese is around 1.32 billion, which is just under 20% of all humans alive today), that figure is still too big to mean much beyond that China is 'number one'.

This map compares the population of China's provinces (plus the 'renegade province' of Taiwan), autonomous regions and municipalities with those of whole countries, and thus helps shed some light on that issue.

China is an interesting country in that it is no longer committed ideologically to Communism, but it is no where close to a free country. Instead, the ideology is a mixture of authoritarianism, nationalism, and some market elements. Hence, I'm glad that there are people interested in translating Ayn Rand's works into Chinese.

If Rand's ideas ever took hold there, China could become a true powerhouse on the world stage. On the other hand, if a different bad ideology became entrenched in place of Communism, we could be looking at a huge menace.

(Via Dave Does The Blog.)

Israel and Hezbollah

StrategyPage reports this little news tidbit regarding Israel and Hezbollah (look at the October 4, 2008 entry, towards the end of the webpage):

Israel has announced that, if there is another round of Hezbollah rocket attacks from southern Lebanon, all the villages that the attacks come from will be destroyed. Hezbollah is ignoring the UN peacekeepers in southern Lebanon and again installing rocket storage areas in the basements of homes, or nearby. The locals are threatened with violence or death by Hezbollah if they resist, so Israel is now playing by the same rules and letting the villagers know that, yes, they are in the crossfire if the rockets go off again

Now I don't know whether Israel's political leadership will actually follow through with their promise. But at least they are articulating the right principle. If Israel is attacked again by Hezbollah, then they have the moral right to strike back and end the threat even if it involves the deaths of Lebanese civilians in those villages where the rockets are coming from.

If those civilians were coerced by Hezbollah into storing those rockets in their homes, then the moral fault for their deaths lies with Hezbollah, not with Israel. If those civilians were willing, then they are active participants and cannot claim to be "innocent civilians".

And it also means that if Lebanese civilians genuinely don't want Hezbollah forcing them to act against their own self-interest, then they will have to stand up and oppose Hezbollah and fight instead for a better Lebanese government that protects their rights (rather than violates those rights and puts them in harm's way).

Of course, if another conflict were to break out between Israel and Hezbollah, I expect the usual unjust condemnation of Israel by the Western press decrying those "innocent civilian casualties" in Lebanon. And American politicians (of both political parties) will put intense diplomatic pressure on Israel to stand down. And Israel will eventually knuckle under, bringing them one step closer to national suicide.

America does not have to fight Israel's wars -- that's not our job. But the one thing we can do is to give Israel our moral support -- in particular affirming with words and deeds that it has a right to defend itself. That more than anything else could reshape Middle East politics in a positive direction and put America's enemies on notice that there will no longer be "business as usual".

Unfortunately, I don't expect this sort of leadership from either McCain or Obama. And if Israel does eventually go under, it won't be long before we're next...

Prediction on North Korea

StrategyPage has an interesting (and plausible) prediction about the near future of North Korea:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il apparently fell ill last April, and months of treatment left him unable to continue nuclear disarmament negotiations. It's unclear if he is back at work, but no one else seems to be able to make decisions.

Meanwhile, the Chinese have better connections inside North Korea, but apparently do not share a lot of information with anyone else. Defectors from North Korea believe that the Chinese will take over if it appears that the North Korean government is about to fall apart. The Chinese plan to install pro-Chinese North Koreans as head of a new "North Korean" government, and institute the kind of economic reforms they have been urging the North Korean to undertake for over a decade. The Chinese do not want North Korea to merge with South Korea, nor do they want North Korea to collapse (and send millions of starving refugees into northern China.

China and South Korea both want North Korea to stay independent, and harmless. Thus China is willing to unofficially annex North Korea, knowing that the South Koreans would go along with this as long as the fiction of North Korean independence were maintained.

South Korea won't admit this, but most South Koreans know that absorbing North Korea would put a big dent in South Korean living standards. That is more unpopular than any other outcome.

As Diana says, it's pathetic when China has to come into a country and be the agent of free market reforms...

Army at Home?

Why is it that I'm not comforted by this "we're from the army and we're here to help" plan?

The 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now they're training for the same mission -- with a twist -- at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.

It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas.

But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities.

After 1st BCT finishes its dwell-time mission, expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one.

And:

"I can't think of a more noble mission than this," said [1st BCT commander Col. Roger] Cloutier, who took command in July. "We've been all over the world during this time of conflict, but now our mission is to take care of citizens at home ... and depending on where an event occurred, you're going home to take care of your home town, your loved ones."

Oy. Will these soldiers also be on call for "manmade emergencies and disasters" like ... say ... economic collapse caused by rampant government interference in the financial markets? Whoever wins the election, the answer surely would be "yes."

I love and respect the American military, and that's why I'm so worried about these plans to deploy the military inside the US. Soldiers must be trained to operate effectively in hostile territory amongst potentially hostile civilians. In those circumstances, every unknown person must be regarded with suspicion, and the overriding goal must be the mission at hand. In contrast, maintaining peace and security at home amongst fellow Americans is the job of the police -- and the national guard, if necessary -- including in times of crisis. That's what they're trained to do, at least in theory.

This news highlights the very real threat to our liberty of reshaping the American military into a humanititarian force abroad, as has happened since World War 2. The threat is not just that taxpayer dollars are wasted on feel-good missions without any relevance to national security. The threat is not just that soldiers must risk their lives for the sake of random strangers in foreign lands, rather than to preserve and protect American liberty. The threat is the logic of the idea: if the military help foreigners in times of disaster, why shouldn't they also help Americans too? To the extent that the military is easygoing and friendly, thereby allowing it to operate at home with all due respect for American civilians, then it's not an effective fighting force: it would not have the kind of detachment, discipline, and ambition to fight real wars in hostile territory. And, if it is that kind of effective fighting force, then any operation inside the US risks a ugly clash between civilians and military. Either way, it's bad.

(Via The Agitator.)

Commemorate from Within

It's another somber anniversary of the murders of approximately 2981 Americans and foreign nationals by Islamists on September 11, 2001.

The necrotizing pestilence that characterizes the ideology of Islamic totalitarianism is alive and well in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. And it infests places across the globe, from Indonesia to Europe.

The Islamists are unequivocal in their goal of jihad: world domination and rule according to Islamic ideology. And I doubt the radicals' infamous leader, Osama bin Laden, has changed his mind about his virulent hatred for Americans and Jews.

Beginning with the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, our leaders have not succeeded in exterminating the threat that continues to thrive and fester like flesh-eating bacteria. So, in commemorating the anniversary of September 11, let's also remember the other innocents who were attacked by jihadists in 2008,2007,2006,2005,2005,2003,2002,2000,1998, 1996, 1995, 1993, 1988, 1986, 1985, 1985, 1983, and 1979.

The outrageous failure of our foreign policy against this cancerous threat is perhaps a symptom of a broader illness in our society. If we look around at the erosion of freedom that's occurring in America, maybe it won't be such a shock to find ourselves stuck with the perpetual threat of terrorism: we're still fighting to uphold our own Constitutionally-protected freedoms against attacks by interest groups who want to tear them down.

First Amendment separation-of-church-and-state issues continue to plague us. Preventing the religious right from ramming their biblical morality through our state and federal legislatures is a constant battle. Take the "personhood" amendment in Colorado which proposes to define the human being as beginning with fertilization. This monstrous religion-driven idea that a microscopic fertilized egg has the same inalienable rights as an actual person represents a level of irrationality right out of the Dark Ages.

Other societal mandates sought by the religious right are just as anti-life: faith-based initiatives, the teaching of creationism, anti-abortion laws, opposition to gay marriage, prayer in the schools, state-sponsorship of religious symbols, and opposition to stem-cell research and euthanasia.

Economic liberty, or property rights, as addressed in the Fifth Amendment is fundamentally important to a free society. But it has been trampled in countless ways, from the passage of the first antitrust laws in the 19th century to the sweepingly-regulatory Sarbanes-Oxley law of 2002. The bottom line: these laws have done nothing but restrict the ability of individuals and businesses to freely produce and trade with one another according to their mutually-agreed terms.

Another example of the disregard for the Fifth Amendment is the wanton abuse of Eminent Domain, best exemplified by the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case, Kelo v City of New London. In that case, the Court said that homes and businesses could be taken for uses that might generate more tax revenue. This affirmed that constitutional "public use" can be defined so that private property can be taken so that new private property can be taxed by the government---a double-dipping violation of property rights.

These examples--and so many others--aren't jet planes crashing into the Bill of Rights; these are laws made and upheld by our Legislators and our Courts and our Presidents. Ultimately, its up to the People to say, "enough!" and establish grounding for our freedom using rational philosophical principles, as identified by Ayn Rand with her philosophy, Objectivism.

So on September 11, 2008, let's commemorate not only the anniversary of the terrorist attack on the United States, but the concept of liberty--that distinctly American institution that we must courageously protect from our enemies---and from ourselves.