From Eric Dondero:In the 1970s, and well into the 1980s, the Libertarian Defense Caucus was an active group within the Libertarian Party seeking to move the LP towards a more Pro-Defense/Pro-Military stance. There have been one or two attempts since, to re-organize the group. Ryan Christiano of New Jersey started a blog for the LDC. However, he soon got disenchanted with the stridency of the antiwar activists within the Party. Christiano abandoned the LP altogether and joined the Republican Party.
The LDC has been dormant ever since.
This weekend the Libertarian Party held its bi-annual national convention in St. Louis. Longtime Libertarian Party of Washington State member Kevin Bjornson (US Coast Guard Veteran) and an original LDC member from the 1970s was in attendance. Bjornson, myself (US Navy Vet) and Alaska Libertarian Party delegate, and candidate for US Senate David Haase (US Army Vet) met at the Salon on the 2nd floor of the Marriot Renassiance Hotel near the convention floor. We were joined by Libertarian Party of Maine State Chairman Shawn Levasseur (photo - right). Towards the end of the meeting Libertarian Party of New Hampshire Chairman and Seabrook Town Selectman Brandon Kelley (US Army Vet) came over to lend his support. After the meeting Texas candidate for Congress, a Libertarian who is also seeking Republican support Jim Prindle (Disabled US Army Vet, Photo - Far Right) joined the group.
Members in attendance immeditely voted Bjornson Chairman. His tenure will last til the next convention in 2 years. Haase was elected Vice-Chairman. I offered to serve as Secretary/Webmaster, and was voted in for that capacity. Earlier, Bjornson had spoken with Sam Sloan of the New York LP. And although he had to catch a flight and was unable to attend, Sloan confirmed he wished to be a member of the group, and was enthusiastic that finally a Pro-Defense caucus was being formed in the LP.
Haase expressed to the others in attendance that although he was staunchly pro-military:
"We have a lot of antiwar people and I don't want to alienate them. They have a number of good ideas. Like Korea. We don't have to occupy them."
Haase continued:"I'm glad to see some opposition to the make love not war crowd. That's my biggest problem with the Libertarian Party. We wouldn't have liberty without war."Bjornson took an even harder stance:
"We need to have a military that's profitible..."He went on to explain his views that we need to gain profits from our ventures overseas, including oil.
Bjornson has a unique perspective on foreign policy; one surely to ruffle some feathers among the non-interventionist crowd. He believes that since America liberated Iraq and Afghanistan, American companies like Haliburton and Exxon, should be given ownership of oil reserves and other natural resources in those Nations. He sees this as the only "true libertarian stance."
Haase, Kelly, Levasseur and others did not necessarily agree with this view.
Bjornson resolved, and other members agreed, that support for the War in Afghanistan would be a top priority for the LDC in the near future.
The official website of the Libertarian Defense Caucus:
DefendLiberty.net
DavidforAlaska.com
JimPrindleforCongress.com
17 comments:
I bet Knapp has some commentary here.
Tom and I are two sides of the coin. We're like polar opposites in the libertarian movement. Good thing we are friends, or else we'd be at each other's throats.
He's gonna push hard on non-interventionism. I'm gonna push hard back for pro-defense.
Jarhead vs. Swabbie.
Non-interventionism IS pro-defense.
Pro-aggression is NOT pro-defense.
A pro-aggression stance would be similar to Manifest Destiny from the late 18th Century and early 19th Century. It would advocate conquering foreign lands and turning them into United States Territories for possible exploitation of resources and such.
In modern terms it would mean, say Iraq giving us a couple off-shore islands in return for liberating their country. Or, maybe us taking over a chunk of Afghanistan.
If anything we've done the exact opposite in the last two decades.
Under the Clinton administration 10 United States Territories were handed over to foreign governments; with it hundreds of thousands of nautical miles of fishing rights, off Alaska and in the Caribbean.
We are giving away our US Territory, not taking more of it. How is that "agression?"
Fighting outlaw regimes who commit acts of War against USA and is funding and harboring Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist outfits, with a stated goal of the destruction of the United States......is not "Self Defense"
Thomas jeffers, the Ultimate Neo-Con by these idiotic, ignorant, standards
"A pro-aggression stance would be similar to Manifest Destiny from the late 18th Century and early 19th Century. It would advocate conquering foreign lands and turning them into United States Territories for possible exploitation of resources and such."
That would be ONE variant of a pro-aggression stance.
The current variant is more internally focused, with the foreign adventurism serving more as a hook to hang things on than as an end in itself.
Occupying Iraq and Afghanistan isn't, for the most part, a land grab. It's an opportunity to transfer money from your wallet and mine to the bank accounts of "defense" contractors.
By way of analogy, it's as if I murdered some random person in front of your house, not for his wallet, but so as to distract you for long enough for me to sneak into your house and steal your new large-screen TV.
I also would think that some in the Bush administration thought they could reshape the middle east by surrounding Iran with "pro-democracy"regimes. They weren't able or willing to take on Iran directly, by wish to do incrementally.
We went to Afghanistan to find and prosecute Bin Laden. Now we are there to nation build. It's nuts. That factors that fomented this country were rare and are rare and don't exist in the world today. If they did, we'd see more of it going on. The classical liberal philosophy doesn't work everywhere because cultures have their own enculturation that is different and takes a higher priority. If you want them to come around, it's capitalism that works, small c capitalism, free trade. When people can own stuff, they have a stake. I like Frank Zappa's take: Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff. It's the best you can do.
I will give Tom this much: Pro-defence isn't nation building by forcing a political system in place, it's not interventionist either, but pro-denfence is also not being totally averse to engaging an enemy and retaliating. The doves and hawks are both wrong. All tools should be on the table, and they have their place. It's just as ridiculous to think you can transplant democracy by force as it is to think you can give everyone a bouquet of flowers, put them on a vegan diet, and have them sing give peace a chance.
It's interesting that any time we discuss this Knapp completely ignores the argument of US Territories.
Again, how can we possibly be "aggressive" as a Nation, when in the last 20 years we've given away 5 Alaskan Islands to Russia, and 5 Pacific Islands to Kirabati, and attempted to give away 3 Caribbean Islands to Columbia and Haiti?
Where's the new US Territory? Why aren't we exploiting some islands off the Iraqi coast, or some small little chunk of Afghanistan?
If we're gonna be "aggressive," fine then. Give us some friggin' Territory!
Eric,
You're confusing "aggression" with "imperialism" or "colonialism." The latter is one kind of the former.
Through the early- to mid-20th century, imperialism/colonialism -- gaining territories -- was the main purpose of military adventurism.
These days (pretty much since the end of WWII), the main purpose of military adventurism is to inflate foreign "threats" to a level that can sustain high levels of corporate welfare at home.
You are dancing Tom. Dancing all around my fundamental point. Cause you know it strikes right at the heart of the hypocrisy of the non-interventionists.
I'll say this very clear:
How can anyone possibly call the United States "Imperialist," or claim that the US is a "Global interventionist," when in the last two decades the US ceded 5 Alaska Islands to Russia, along with hundreds of thousands of maritime square miles, and additionally, ceded 5 islands to the tiny nation of Kirabati in the Pacific, and attempted to give away 3 Caribbean islands to Columbia and Haiti.
And "Imperialist" nation ought to be seeking to expand its territory, not retract it.
I should mention Clinton gave away those 5 Alaska islands to the Russians despite the UNANIMOUS! opposition of the Alaska State Legislature.
Interestingly, Rep. John Cogdon, a friend of the Libertarian Party of Alaska, led the charge against the giveaway.
"You are dancing Tom. Dancing all around my fundamental point. Cause you know it strikes right at the heart of the hypocrisy of the non-interventionists."
I'm not "dancing around" anything. I'm pointing out that your "fundamental point" is neither fundamental nor a point.
Imperialism is ONE FORM of interventionism. The form of interventionism normally undertaken by the US since World War II hasn't been imperialism (interventionism for the purpose of accruing territory), it's been interventionism for the purpose of maintaining insanely high taxpayer subsidies for a corporate welfare harem (the military-industrial complex).
@Tom:
It's more than corporate welfare. It's arrogance that some think they should change the world in according to their view. We have too many control in the world, whether the Taliban or Neo-cons, or socialists.
Hey, does the Acting National Chairman since 2005 get a title in this coup, or is he left out in the cold of the political wilderness? ;)
"However, he soon got disenchanted with the stridency of the antiwar activists within the Party. Christiano abandoned the LP altogether and joined the Republican Party."
Actually, dirty little secret time, I never joined either the LP or GOP in my twenty-six years, or any political Party for that matter.
Becoming a member of a party is antithetical to my rugged individualistic philosophy.
I work within the LP and GOP for political expediency.
"got disenchanted with the stridency of the antiwar activists"
No, just Knapp ;)
Ryan,
Glad to be of assistance ;-)
Post a Comment