Neolibertarians like me are often described as supportive of the Iraq War of 2003, but I must ask: what do the people describing us as such mean by that? And what libertarian ideals could possibly justify having blasted down the Saddam regime in 2003? I am going to name off those grounds here.
Ground 1: “We Should Only Wage War To Directly Defend America Or Her Friends”
This is basically the phrase-line of basic military Non-intervention. Considering America’s friends, who were and are America’s friends during the 1980’s, 1990’s, 2000’s and 2010’s? Well, in order from slightest to strongest friend, they were and are:
You’ll notice Israel is our strongest friend in the Greater Middle East, but I’ll be honest: we don’t need to be militarily allied to them for us to be doing free trade and open immigration and freedom of association and freedom of movement with them. There is a nuance between militarily allied and honestly a friend. Israel is a parliamentary republic full of political freedom and a mostly free economy but its only moral suffering is from insufficient moral freedom, including its heinous and unwarranted military drafting: the legion that fights voluntary fights the hardest and smartest by libertarian estimation.
That said, what was Saddam Hussein doing to Israel that made militarily collapsing his regime the right way to open space for the creation of a parliamentary republic of civil liberties, political freedom, and economic laissez-faire (NOT simply a democracy like we ended up pushing to create)? Put it this way:
- Saddam was firing SCUD missiles into Israel
- Saddam was a prolific sponsor of Salafi champion Yasser Arafat and Arafat’s Salafi legion the Hamas.
- This combo of prolific sponsorship and direct missile fire resulted in Hamas carrying out numerous barbaric assaults against Israel, and in every single case Israel had every moral right to retaliate harder than it did.
- Article about Saddam’s murderous barbarity toward Israel HERE.
Ground 2: “Maximum Freedom ~ Minimum Government!”
I don’t think I need to explain how the LP’s own motto is perfectly libertarian reasoning for destroying the Saddam regime, I am just going to let Wikipedia do it for me (Individual freedom in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – there was none. And Saddam’s government size? Colossal).
Ground 3: “End All Barriers To Free Trade”
Behaviorally, Saddam’s Hussein’s repeat use of genocide, famine, state terrorism, and mustard gas to force his insanity onto the Fertile Crescent was the biggest barrier in that region at the time to unrestricted free trade: He was making free trade a dangerous idea, and at the time it was either free trade gets killed by restrictions to trade or free trade gets emboldened by the ousting of Saddam.
Ground 4: “Free Market Capitalism is inherently better than Socialism of any sort”
You know what, mainstream libertarians, I agree! And the Saddam Hussein barbarism was motivated by a brand of socialism called Baathism, which traces its origins to anti-libertarian academics in France in World War II era. Baathism holds that a centrally planned economy is the key to bringing Arab nationalism to the state of world norm. This therefore got Saddam interested in killing and ordering violations of his fellow Iraqis in the name of central economic planning.
Indeed, I will stop here. My point in doing this post was Saddam was on no account an enemy of Salafism and he was on no account a counterbalance to any interests any Western world libertarian might have had now or at the time as Rand Paul thinks Saddam was. So, thanks for the read everyone;