Home | About | Forums | Links | Contact | LR X-treme | Video | RSS
Daily e-mail updates from
Libertarian Republican.

Monday, February 9, 2009

First signs Anti-War Libertarians conceding success in Iraq



Tops on the Libertarian Left: from Left to furthest Left - Lew Rockwell, George Phillies & Thomas Knapp





by Eric Dondero

We here at Libertarian Republican have been banging on this drum for months now, years even. We Pro-Defense libertarians have been wondering out loud, when would the Anti-War faction of the libertarian movement finally fess up, and admit that they were wrong; that America has won the War in Iraq?

Many prominent liberals including most recently some huge figures in the liberal media, all former fierce War critics, have fessed up. So, why have the Anti-War Libertarians been so hesitant?

Why no Mea Culpas from Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris (photo), Gene Berkman, Anthony Gregory, Alan Turin, Trent Hill, Ernie Hancock, Mary Ruwart, George Phillies, and all those diehard Ron Paulists?

In fairness, two minor players on the Libertarian Left, did make some noises to that affect in recent months: "Knappster" Thomas Knapp and Steve Newton over at Delaware Libertarian. Fittingly, both men are the only Military Vets in the group.

But now a major figure among Anti-War Libertarians has finally admitted to Iraq War success. And he couldn't have picked a better Forum: AntiWar.com. The site is ground zero in the Blogosphere for the Far Leftwing of the libertarian movement.

From Alan Bock, Senior Editor, Orange County Register, AntiWar.com, Feb. 9:

Iraqis back in Charge?

The votes are not officially tabulated yet, and it will take a while for the implications of the recent provincial elections in Iraq to become apparent. But it is not too early to take note that they were conducted almost entirely by the Iraqis themselves, under Iraqi rather than American direct supervision, and that they were carried out almost completely peacefully... While the neocon fantasy of a model democracy the rest of the Middle East will rush to emulate is unlikely to emerge anytime soon, it is nonetheless a moderately hopeful omen.
And later in the piece an amazing admission from Bock that Iraqis actually appreciate somewhat American presence. This runs completely 180 degrees from what AntiWar.com and others on the Libertarian Left have been saying since 2003. Continuing:

Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of these elections is that the status or role of the U.S. seemed to play little role in the campaigning or in the positions taken by various parties... at least the parties didn't go out of their way to show that this one or that one resented the occupiers more than its adversaries did.
Bock ends with a sensible proposition:

The longer it appears U.S. forces are staying, the more Iraqis are likely to postpone taking the kind of full responsibility the U.S. has said it wants them to take.
Time to begin the pull-out out of Iraq, and let the Iraqi's take on even greater responsibilities for their own security? Hey, that's one sentiment that even us Pro-War in Iraq libertarians can agree on.

Now, if we can only get Justin Raimondo to man up and admit he was wrong, we'd all be in good shape. Whoopsi! Raimondo "manning up" on anything? On second thought, we'll just be content with Bock's admission for now.

DISCLOSURE: I served as Florida Chairman for Raimondo and Garris's Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee in the late 1980s. For years I tried to get them to be more reasonable on Defense matters. But with no success. Which led me to found the Republican Liberty Caucus in 1990. Needless to say, the RLC has proved to be a great success. LROC went defunct in 1991.

UPDATE

Let the record show that Tom Knapp does not agree with my analysis of his views on the War. He informs LR that he still believes the War has not been one. This despite some remarks he's made on various forums acknowledging the success on the ground of the Troops and the Surge. He is by all intents and puropses, a decidedly "mixed bag." -- ED

31 comments:

Steve Newton said...

Eric
While I appreciate the press, exactly when did I offer a mea culpa for my position on Iraq?

It is strange when I miss a post that I apparently wrote.

[Unless you are referring to me talking last year about the tactical success of the surge within the context of a completely bankrupt strategy.]

Kn@ppster said...

Pretty much what Steve N. said -- to the best of my recollection, I have at no point stipulated to the absurd claim that the Iraq war has been won, or even that it's winnable.

Eric Dondero said...

This is why I said on both counts, "fessed up to some extent." Not completely. In fact, I'm still waiting on both you all to admit you were completely wrong.

Then again, given y'all's stubborness and hard-headed dogmatic egocentrism, better chance of the proverbial snowball in Hell.

Eric Dondero said...

Hey guys, if you both prefer, I could re-edit the piece, and ditch that paragraph giving you all credit for being the only two preceding Boch, to admit to some success?

I'd be more than happy to lump you both in with the total losers like Rockwell, Raimondo, and Garris.

Trent Hill said...

"Why no Mea Culpas from Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris (photo), Gene Berkman, Anthony Gregory, Alan Turin, Trent Hill, Ernie Hancock, Mary Ruwart, George Phillies, and all those diehard Ron Paulists?"

While I'm glad to be in such great company (Rockwell, Raimondo, Garris, Ernie Hancock, and Anthony Gregory)--im no leftist, as we've already gone over. Im also a registered Republican, a member of RLC, and have never been called a leftist by anyone with any brains whatsoever.

Publius said...

Ok, let's just say the Iraq war is won -- we can pull out and Iraq is a good democratic ally now. Was it worth $1 trillion+??

Kn@ppster said...

"Hey guys, if you both prefer, I could re-edit the piece, and ditch that paragraph giving you all credit for being the only two preceding Boch, to admit to some success?"

I can't speak for Mr. Newton. For myself, yes, I would appreciate that your lie either be redacted or corrected.

bint alshamsa said...

Wow! Kn@ppster IS pretty hot...and his politics are a hell of a lot more sensible than yours, Dondero.

Anonymous said...

Why is winning a war important? Had Hitler won and dominated the world and exterminated all the Jews, would that have made his war right? If I punch your lights out in an alley and get away clean, does that make it OK for me?

Tens of thousands of innocents and 4,000+ Americans died in a war for oil and to defend daddy's honor. If it is won (and it ain't over until it's over - and that could be decades from now) it doesn't make it right.

Alex said...

Bint - keep up the Communist claptrap. You're great as a court jester type - for ridicule.

Eric Dondero said...

Why is winning a War important? My gosh what an assinine question. You win the award for stupidest mother fucking on Libertarian Republican blog for the month.

It's important for countless reasons, not the least of which is for the Troops morale. So that Military Veterans can go through their lives knowing that they won a War, and not be saddled with the "disease" of Vietnam War syndrome, that so many American Vietnam Vets have to deal with every day.

But it's also important for the morale of a Great Nation. Knowing we kicked ass. And that we are the Greatest Nation on the Planet.

Eric Dondero said...

Hey BTW Anonymous did you catch the news yesterday?

The guy in Iraq, that had been responsible for reporting on the deaths of Iraqis as a result of the US invasion over the last few years, was found to be a complete fraud.

The actual number, not the "1 million" boasted by leftwinger Bush haters, was closer to 50,000, according to Iraqi morgue officials. The Stats guy admitted to completely falsifying the figures.

And you Lefties fell for it.

Eric Dondero said...

Bint, don't get too excited. The Knappster, has gained a considerable amount of weight since that photo was taken. And years of child-rearing have taken its toll. His hair is little more wiry and greay. And his teeth are a bit more yellowed and missing.

Eric Dondero said...

Funny, not a single one of you talked about Alan Bock's admission at AntiWar.com, which was the purpose of the editorial.

Cat got y'all's tongues?

Disbelieving that a member of your Lefty Caucus would actually dissent from your "Iraq War dissaster" viewpoints?

Oh, how sweet it is to be a Pro-Defense Libertarian. Gotta admit, life was tough for us in 2005/06/07. But now we've got the ultimate revenge.

Doing the happy dance... (My dog is looking at me like I'm nuts.)

Chris Baker said...

The biggest joke in your post is that the Republican Liberty Caucus has been a "great success." How has it impacted the party or the nation since its founding?

This comment is especially revealing: "But it's also important for the morale of a Great Nation. Knowing we kicked ass. And that we are the Greatest Nation on the Planet."

The fundamental belief here is that right and wrong is not determined by any moral principles, but simply by who kills more people. Since "war is the health of the state," winning wars indicates a healthy state.

For neo-cons like Dondero, a nation is not great because of its freedom, its inventions, its business leaders, its creators, or even its gold medal tally at the Olympics. For neo-cons, a nation is only great when it shows that it has a powerful state that can obliterate the planet in a matter of seconds.

What's strange for neo-cons is that they also think this national greatness is consistent with the US being Israel's Bitch.

Emma Goldman said...

ED--

Thanks for reminding us about the Antiwar.com Pledge Drive.

Great to see my home boys Newton, Knapp and Baker out and about.

Our Lord and Savior God King Obama is honoring his faux-Muslim roots by killing as many Muslims as possible. That will show 'em.

I'm a atheist Jew but I long for an actual Christian in the White House. One that takes that "Thou shalt not kill" thing seriously. Unfortunately for us, Obama doesn't actually take any religious cues from the Rev. Wright who didn't say anything that Kucinich and Paul hadn't said the year before.

The beautiful Ms. Alshamsa is always dead on. Given the appropriate spousal approval, I'd ride Knapp last the last copter out Saigon.

Peace.

Emma said...

That's "like the last copter out of Saigon."

Was taking a donor call while typing.

Smaug0829 said...

I am a Desert Shield/Storm vet, and when we left i knew we would be back since we were not given the OK to finish the job. From 1991 to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 Saddam Hussein Killed his own people (The Kurds) using Nerve agent (WMD), killed and /or tortured those who opposed him, His sons raped and killed with no remorse, Saddam ignored the No fly zone and fired missiles at American jets (Bush I, Clinton, BushII), and Ignored the U.N. and would not allow weapons inspectors into the country. Among many other reasons for the invasion, Non believers can research to find more.

Was it worth the price tag in lives and cash i think so, no I Know So.

I will admit the war had mistakes made, but the invasion was not a mistake. The surge has worked and is working to return Iraq to the Iraqi People.

I am proud of my Military Brothers and sisters for the job they have done. I Salute you all.

Kn@ppster said...

"From 1991 to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 Saddam Hussein Killed his own people (The Kurds) using Nerve agent (WMD)."

The primary cited instance of chemical warfare against the Kurds occurred in 1998. According to the US at the time, it was most likely an Iranian, not an Iraqi, attack -- in part because no, it wasn't a nerve agent that was used, but a blood agent (cyanide, which the Iranians were known to stock and the Iraqis weren't known to stock). Halabja was located right in the middle of a battle area at the time.

It wasn't until 1990, when you and I were getting our indoc for the liberation of Kuwait, that Halabja suddenly became "something that Saddam did."

AFTER Desert Storm, the Kurdish territories (and the al Qaeda cells operating out of them) were protected by the US, and Saddam, as we now know, didn't have any WMD to kill the Kurds with.

bint alshamsa said...

Alex,

How does it feel to be the official LR sock-puppet?

Eric Dondero said...

Hmmn? I'm a "NeoCon." Really?

Could you name some other NeoCons who want to legalize prostitution, gambling, marijuana, repeal seat belt laws, allow states to decide speed limits, oppose political correctness/speech codes and want to repeal all affirmative action?

And NeoCons are pointy-headed intellectuals. I'm a "meat and potatos" blue collar libertarian who didn't come from some Ivey League college in the Northeast.

Anonymous said...

Apparently you have to be from the Ivy League to appreciate spelling as well.

"meat and potatos" and "pointy-headed" are the most retarded distinctions you can make in politics.

Congratulations Eric, you're a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal

bint alshamsa said...

Eric,

want to repeal all affirmative action

No you don't.

Eric Dondero said...

Aha! See how Anonymous diverts and completely avoids answering the question.

Again, Anonymous - since you fucking refuse to sign your posts - how can someone be a "NeoCon" and favor marijuana legalization? Prostitution, Gambling, Repeal of Seat Belt laws, ending Government-sponsored affirmative action, opposing mandator National service/Military Draft?

Do NeoCons like Bill Kristol, Bill Bennett, Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, et.al. support such positions?

And if not, would that make "NeoCon" and extremely expansive definition for a political person, covering everything from Democrat-leaning moderate centrists, all the way to government slashing libertarians?

Eric Dondero said...

BTW Anonymous, the people I follow in politics are: Dennis Miller, Ted Nugent, Glenn Beck, PJ O'Rourke, Tom McClintock, Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford, Larry Elder, Butch Otter, John Shadegg, Neal Boortz, Tammy Bruce, et.al. Not a "NeoCon" among them.

I rarely find myself in agreement with NeoCons like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Mort Kondracke, Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Fareed Zakira, et.al.

Even on foreign policy the above-mentioned NeoCons are pretty much fucked IMHO. They're War Wimps. They don't want to fight a real War against Islamo-Fascism. They only mouth support for the War.

Further, they all support Foreign Aid. I want to abolish Foreign Aid. What's more, they all like the United Nations. I'm like Fuck the UN. They can shove their silly UN membership up their asses.

So, can you tell me where it is that my views and theirs intersect?

Kn@ppster said...

"This despite some remarks [Knapp's] made on various forums acknowledging the success on the ground of the Troops and the Surge. He is by all intents and puropses, a decidedly 'mixed bag.'"

No, I'm not. My position from the beginning, without exceptions, has been that the war on Iraq was a bad idea in theory and continues to be an unmitigated clusterfuck in practice.

bint alshamsa said...

Eric,

I want to abolish Foreign Aid.

Liar.

H├ęctor said...

Eric,
"I'm a "meat and potatos" blue collar libertarian who didn't come from some Ivey League college in the Northeast."
Yes, your lack of education is quite evident.

And in Foreign Policy, you are, at the very least, REALLY CLOSE to a Neo-con.

Brian N. said...

The term I use for Shake's style is 'sweaty football rally pastor' almost stealing a line from Heinlein's brilliant Stranger in a Strange Land. Shake, you really are a paragon of this age; just smart enough to be really stupid.

bint alshamsa said...

Brian,

Thanks for the link. LOL!! You're right en pointe!

Brian N. said...

I aim to please, madame.