Debating the Ideas Behind the War on Iraq and Terrorism

The Cato Institute and the Objectivist Center held an all-day conference on October 22 on "Lessons from the Iraq War: Reconciling Liberty and Security." Cato Executive Vice President David Boaz and TOC Executive Director David Kelley both opened the event by observing that, while all libertarians and Objectivists accept the principles of individual liberty, free markets, and limited government, they have disagreed among themselves concerning the application of these principles to the war in Iraq, as well as on terrorism in general. Kelley noted that in the international arena, since there is no overriding rule of law or authority, the principles of individual liberty do not yield the same clear policy prescriptions as in a domestic situation. Thus, in foreign policy we must ask questions like, "What constitutes a threat of force?" and "When is preemptive military action permissible?"

The first panel reflected on the Iraq war. Syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock called Iraq a general store for terrorists, documenting Saddam Hussein's support for al Qaeda and the provision of money, consular services, and medical care for terrorists. He noted that the war is not against any one country or group, but against radical Islam in all its forms.

John Mueller of Ohio State University countered that the United States bogged down in Iraq as it did in Vietnam. He said that not only were there no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but terrorism is not a major threat—with the exception of 9/11, few people worldwide have been killed by terrorists.

James Robbins of the National Defense University disagreed, maintaining that while in retrospect Hussein had no WMDs, he was still a general threat to world peace. Robbins added that states are not equal on the international scene, and that criminal regimes like Hussein's have no right to exist.

Cato's Charles Peña argued that even if Saddam had possessed WMDs, deterrence had and would continue to prevent him from using them.

Kamal Nawash of the Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism kicked off the second panel, on the aftermath of the war. He emphasized the importance of establishing an economically prosperous, democratic, and secular Iraq as an example for other failed Arab governments and for cultures with theocratic leanings that are prone to the allure of radical Islamists. Then Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland discussed negative attitudes in the Arab world toward America, which are aggravated by U.S. support for Israel. He suggested that the region would fare better if authoritarian Arab governments were more accountable to their own people.

Jacob Hornberger of the Future of Freedom Foundation blamed America for the current hate and attacks against the country and its citizens. America, he said, was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq from economic sanctions prior to the war, which then killed even more Iraqis and made matters worse. He maintained that Muslims and Arabs hate America because of what we do, not because of our freedom or culture.

Patrick Basham of Cato weighed in by arguing that the prospects for democracy in Iraq and other Arab and Islamic countries are not good; the cultural values that are the building blocks of democracy include political trust, social tolerance, support for basic political liberties, and gender equality—all absent from most of the region's cultures.

TOC Washington D.C. Director Edward Hudgins opened the third panel, on principles to guide military action, by describing the horrific crimes of Hussein's government—cutting off tongues, hands, and heads as a matter of state policy—and observing that there is no moral equivalence between America, the former illegitimate Iraqi regime, and many other regimes in the world. He maintained that the Islamists do not hate America and the West for traditional public policy, international relations, or economic reasons any more than the Nazis hated Jews for such reasons. Rather, theirs is an ideology based on envy and the most profound religious irrationality. Hudgins also rejected the neo-conservative notion that America has an historical duty to spread democracy around the world. Instead, our government has a constitutional responsibility to protect Americans, and thus it is legitimate for the American government to defang any government or group that threatens us. He also observed that free-market reforms in Middle Eastern countries would reduce the appeal of Islamism.

Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute then maintained that America has lost most of its constitutional liberties because of the war against terrorism and Iraq. Hudgins countered that, while there are abuses that should concern us all, the ability of Cato, TOC, and others to criticize the government shows that some freedoms are still intact.

Ron Bailey of Reason held that America is more secure in a world of free countries and that we are not as safe in a world that is half free and half enslaved. He suggested reviving the Reagan doctrine, using allies and subnational groups to fight terrorism.

Cato's Chris Preble argued that the Constitution does empower the U.S. government to protect Americans, but not to spread freedom in other lands. Those of us who do not trust government to reshape society domestically should not expect success for such efforts overseas.

The event's concluding question and discussion period was an interesting and lively example of how TOC adds a unique Objectivist perspective to discussions of the issues of the day.