logicallypositive:
squashed:
libertarians-and-stoya responded to my support for Obama on the grounds that he’s competently kept the ship afloat and pointed it in the right direction by writing:
Forgot “mass murder of Muslim men, women and children”. Seems pretty boring to me.
The Cheeky Libertarian has been doing the same thing. There’s a war. The U.S. is part of it. Therefore, they argue, everything that happens in the war is directly attributable to Obama.
I have a profound respect for a principled pacifism and for anybody whose desire to avoid war at all costs is coupled with a robust peace-making agenda. There are valid and important criticisms of U.S. actions and motivations abroad from people who loathe war and are willing to work to stop it.
But that’s not what the libertarians are doing. They’re not pacifists. They’re non-interventionists. They offer a stomach-turning false pacifism that only pretends to care about “Muslim men, women and children” for long enough to advance isolationist policy goals. Their willingness so stand against any particular war ends the moment the U.S. disentangles itself. Their mantra isn’t “Peace now.” It’s “We can’t be fucked to care about other countries.”
When you believe in peace for the sake of peace, we’ll talk. Until then, let’s not bullshit each other.
no just no
My position is far more consistent with pacifism than any government interventionist attempt to ‘create’ peace (I will never understand how one brings peace with predator drones or armoured tanks, but that’s the claim a lot of people seem to be making by supporting interventionism). I believe in peace for the sake of peace, but insofar as one can only control his or herself, the principle of non-aggression, and therefore anti-interventionism, is the most effective advocacy through which peace can be achieved. It makes absolutely no sense to attempt to control others in an effort to bring about peace, as control requires force, which not only perpetuates conflict, but also expands it to comprise more actors and, in turn, more victims.
We are not going to solve the coltan conflict in the DRC or the Israel-Palestine conflict with violence and the United Nation’s involvement in the Rwandan genocide has shown us that international involvement, in particular, often exacerbates these conflicts to result in more harm to the victims (not to mention that the Hutu-Tutsi conflict resulted exclusively as a result of ethnic tensions created by the preferential treatment (and after independence, power) given to the Tutsis by the Belgians for their slender physical features). Similarly, La Violencia in Colombia (as well as the ongoing drug wars, particularly involving the FARC, but those include the US, so I guess I can’t mention them), the violence (and sheer fear) of the Shining Path in Peru, the violent rise of Pinochet’s military regime in Chile, the Armenian Genocide, the Cambodian genocide, Apartheid in South Africa, and the almost daily hate crimes against Turkish immigrants in Germany, as well as so many other atrocities that have happened and are happening, are indescribably terrible.
My heart truly goes out to those who suffer and have suffered. But it is one thing to be a bystander who attempts diplomacy (which I am a huge advocate for) and quite another to be the aggressor (even if mistakenly). Obama, as Commander in Chief, is entirely responsible for the initiation and/or perpetuation of violence by our military, abroad and at home, because that is the one thing he has essentially complete control over. He also personally ordered the assassination of Anwar Al-awlaki and his 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki—the latter was killed in a drone strike while trying to find his father (as in, not incidentally, but as a result of an independently orchestrated attack), who had already been killed (when he was killed, he was eating with his friends, none of whom survived the attack).
Just because the US seems to be involved in most conflicts these days, in one way or another, that doesn’t mean you are in any position to claim that my (yes, me personally, as you seem to single me out) vocal opposition to US imperialism and violence somehow implies apathy regarding other atrocities. It is precisely because I care about minimizing suffering that I don’t encourage American politicization of atrocities abroad. It is precisely because of efforts, such as ‘Kony 2012’—which has reawakened serious trauma in many victims, who otherwise had left the terror behind them, for a completely misguided guerilla marketing campaign which can only result in more funding for the Ugandan government, who is partially responsible for the very atrocities IC claims to decry—which cause more harm than good, that I focus on the atrocities which the US government initiates and can easily cease, rather than those for which my efforts can do little, if any, good.
And even if there are libertarians who fall under your criticisms, I will remind you that any peace is good peace. ‘Liberaler than thou’ criticisms don’t work, socially, politically, or morally, especially when you’re supporting Bush 2.0.
thecheekylibertarian 