Libertarians For War

Doug Bandow makes the case that one can't be libertarian and a "hawk" at the same time. He's right, but something needs to be clarified here:

[A] libertarian could have made a national interest argument (for going to war in Iraq), but in doing so, he or she would have had to (1) rely on the dubious claims involving WMD and terrorist connections advanced by war advocates; (2) doubt the value of deterrence, despite international experience with Stalin's Soviet Union and Mao's China; and (3) believe fantastic predictions about the ease of the inevitable occupation. Having been so credulous, said libertarian today should be embarrassed – and skeptical of all future war propaganda.

My quibble is that even if there was clear evidence that Saddam had WMD's, that wasn't a strong enough case for war. The nation of Iraq had as much a right to defend itself and deter aggression as any other country, even with WMD's. If UN resolutions said otherwise, those resolutions were wrong and the USA shouldn't have tried to enforce them. For the libertarian to endorse the war, the evidence also had to show that Saddam intended to use WMD's against America. There wasn't any evidence of that, so the best that could be said is that a libertarian who supported the war had a lapse of judgment.