Bin Laden's Dead: So What?

Apparently, 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden has been killed. This could and should be good news to anyone seeking an end to the wars we are fighting and closure for the victims of those atrocious attacks some 10 years ago. But I fear the death of bin Laden will do little more than fuel blind displays of nationalism and, in the short-term, appease those demanding results in the so-called "War on Terror."

Before I get as excited as those on the internet and elsewhere about Bib Laden's, I must question whether the death of this monster will lead to any real change in US foreign policy. For the death of bin Laden bringing no lasting effect is no good news at all.

Osama bin Laden's hate was fueled and recruitment was aided by US involvement and occupation in the Middle East. Does that mean he was innocent of his crimes? Not at all! It just means that the US helped create and aid the very enemy we then fought to destroy. Our own CIA reported such, and we would be wise to prevent such behavior in the future. We must not repeat our past mistakes, if we are to achieve real, lasting victory in our current aims to crack down on terrorism as well as be successful future endeavors. 

If we do not put a stop to a foreign policy that helped create and aid monsters like bin Laden, there is no victory in his death. Others like him will merely rise up to replace him.

Ten years ago we began our efforts to track down the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Since then we have developed an alarming appetite for war, seen our civil liberties trampled upon one by one, scores of lives have been lost, numerous dollars and resources have been spent, and our country looks far less like America and more and more like a tyrannical empire. Perhaps, bin Laden has had more success than many are willing to give him. Therefore, let us repair the damage done and return to constitutional governance. Let's act to prevent such atrocities in the future.

I would have preferred we'd dealt with bin Laden through the constitutional means of issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal, but we have brought him death nonetheless. Now let's put to death any policies that would bring about another bin Laden or aid his desired pursuits--such as taking the lives and liberties of others. If we do not, bin Laden is dead, but so what?

Rand Paul and Mike Lee on the Unconstitutional Libyan War

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor, championing the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization before military action and calling out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. It was a rousing speech and a great moment for my favorite young senator.

Ike and Iron Man by the Southern Avenger

A Global Force for Good?

Have you seen the new slogan for the US Navy: A Global Force for Good? (in the video above)

I am not attempting to call the Navy a force for evil, but I do take issue with the slogan. It is not the job of the US Navy to be a global force for anything; it is to be a force for US national defense--nothing more and nothing less.

Sadly, this slogan is symptomatic of the way foreign policy is viewed in our modern age. National defense is no longer the goal of our military actions. Rather, nation building, world policing, and global power grabs fuel a foreign policy that jeopardizes our safety and causes the loss of innocent life. Unfortunately, what was once viewed as a noble goal--the defense of one's citizenry--is now viewed by many as selfish and misguided.

Alexis de Tocqueville noted that America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceased to be good it would cease to be great. He recognized that greatness depended on goodness, not the other way around. Regretfully, today it is often claimed that it's the opposite as if being great somehow makes us good and gives us a mandate to spread our influence through military might. Many do not realize that the best way for us to effect good in the world is to be good ourselves. Good cannot be achieved through might, nor should it be.

But more than might, I am sure the Navy's intent in the slogan stems partially from their humanitarian actions across the globe. But should the military be doing humanitarian action across the globe? I am a huge proponent of humanitarian aid; I've done my fair share. But I do not support the military doing so. It is not in their job description; their role is one of national defense.

Moreover, we must look to the global nature of the slogan. Even if the Navy is to be a force of good, it should not be a global force. What we see in this slogan is the continuation of a globalist agenda which neglects American interests and sovereignty. The fact that your tax dollars are paying to propagate such makes it all the worse.

Perhaps the Navy will one day change properly to being A National Force for Defense. For now, that is not the case.

Non-Interventionists ARE Pro National Defense and Do Support the Troops

Please check out my latest post at The Humble Libertarian on why non-interventionism is both pro-troops and pro-strong national defense.

Can you be opposed to our current wars as well as the influence of the military-industrial complex and still be pro-troops and strong on national defense? Of course, you can! But you wouldn't know it, listening to many of the talking heads who claim to carry the mantel of conservatism but are really just neocons or neocon-influenced.

Opposition to preventable, unconstitutional war is nothing new to libertarians and conservatives who made up the Old Right. In the past, adherence to a strict non-interventionist foreign policy was a distinguishing mark of the Old Right, and any self-respecting libertarian/conservative was quick to be weary of war and what Murray Rothbard labeled "the warfare state."

Moreover, war was only to be fought according to a strict set of principles. Just War Theory conditions, constitutional parameters, and true defensive needs had to be met in order for those past champions of human freedom to endorse the United States taking military action.

Needless to say, much has changed in recent decades. Neoconservative influence and a general lack of consistently applied principles have led so-called libertarians and conservatives to abandon their non-interventionist heritage and endorse unconstitutional and unnecessary wars.

To make things worse, those who hold to traditional principles as small government advocates are called unpatriotic, anti-military, and anti-strong national defense by many who claim to be on the side of liberty. This deception has gone on for far too long, and it is time to set the record straight. (Continue reading here.)

The Patriot's Pledge

Realizing the enormous growth of government and shameful decay of liberties following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001, The Patriot's Pledge has come onto the scene--seeking to provide a voice for victims in the case of a potential terrorist attack in the future. It is a call for a constitutional response and the preservation of liberty, rather than the regretful aftermath of our last major domestic attack.

Hopefully, I will never need this pledge to speak on my behalf--but if I do--I want to make my position sound. I will not see the liberty of my countrymen eroded in a response by our government. I hope that you will not as well. And I hope that you will sign the pledge, affirming as much.

(Thanks to The Humble Libertarian for alerting me to this worthy cause.)