At Reason, Matt Welch asks ten questions of those he calls “pro-war libertarians.” He seems to really be interested in conversation, so I thought I’d offer some answers. But I’ll begin by noting that it is absolutely unwarranted to refer to us as “pro-war.” If it’s wrong to call you guys cowards and traitors, then it’s wrong to call us “pro-war.” We believe in victory, not in war, and if victory could be accomplished without war, we would be in favor of that. If Mr. Welch really is interested in understanding the other side, calling them names is not a wise course of action.
You see Matt, what if Timothy called you "anti-war?" Huh? Huh? How would you feel then? Why insist on calling the pro-war side the vicious name "pro-war?" Why drag the converation into the sewer like that?
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't know what universe Timothy Sandefur is living in either. Yes, I too thought that calling the pro-war side "pro-war" was an accurate description, not invective. True, I thought the supporters of the war even described themselves that way. Maybe Sandefur is hyper-sensitive because starting wars against nations that never attacked us is incongruous with normal definitions of "libertarian." But still, shouldn't we respect his feelings?
Posts
I'm not going to lump everyone supporting the Iraq invasion into the "pro-war" category, but I think it's an appropriate reference to use with many of them.
ReplyDeleteToo many of them seem to have gone out of their way to find excuses to justify attacking Iraq (or any other country). Much along the same line as the Bush Administration did to justify it. It would be interesting to ask those so adamant in supporting the invasion if there were any war or other U.S. military action they can think of that wasn't justified. Many of them won't.
Even one prominent left leaning LPer in the San Francisco Bay Area has supported every U.S. military action, at least since I've been familiar with him. Never mind the Objectivists down there. I don't know what else you could call someone who always supports military action but pro- war.
Perhaps, "anti-peace" is the appropriate descriptor? Or "anti-anti-war"?
ReplyDelete