Is War Necessary? – Part II

My article "Is War Necessary?" provoked a number of email comments and criticisms. Here are some of them, together with my responses.

"Either you live in a cocoon or are a physical and/or moral coward!!"

Would you like me better if I said I had beat up two dozen men and a handful of women?

"Sometimes you have to accept the burden. Some responsibilities can not be wished away. That is what the liberals do, they run from responsibility, hoping that by being 'nice' people, the big bad wolf will not bang on their door. . . . 

"You liberals either don't understand history or don't want to. Either way, you end up being physical and moral cowards."

You have me mixed up with someone else.

Unlike liberals, and unlike you, I have no faith in government. It can't run the health-care system, doesn't educate our children well, and it certainly doesn't keep us safe from your "big bad wolf."

As for "being physical and moral cowards": If it's cowardly not to want to see innocent people killed, I guess I'm a coward. I'm not brave enough to taunt the villain and dare him to kill a bunch of other people.

If you want to go over to the Middle East and fight for "Iraqi Freedom," that's your business. But by staying at home, eating well, watching TV, and earning a decent living  — while men, women, and children are getting killed in Iraq — it is you who won't "accept the burden." It is you who are "wishing away responsibilities." It is you who is "running from responsibility." It is you who are the physical and moral coward, while playing the part of the courageous hero.

I hope you don't go off to fight in the Middle East. But I also want every American there to come home. I want to see America live in peace and liberty. And big government doesn't provide either.

Switzerland

Since I said in my article "They've devised ingenious defenses to demonstrate that, while Switzerland is not unconquerable, the cost of conquest would be intolerable to the conqueror," I'm not sure what you're complaining about. As a matter of fact, I lived in Switzerland for six years and am quite familiar with its defense system. But notice that it is focused on defense, not offense — as the U.S. system is.

Since I said in my article "And they've made themselves an indispensable trading partner to any country that otherwise might see some advantage in invading Switzerland," I'm not sure what new information you think you're providing.

The Swiss banking system was founded hundreds of years ago. Laws were passed in the mid-1930s to protect Jewish accounts from being investigated or confiscated by the Nazis; otherwise, the system remained as it always had been. The only gold the Swiss bankers retained after the war was gold for which claimants had no way to prove their ownership; you can't expect a banker to give someone's gold to anyone who showed up at the door asking for it, but who had no evidence of ownership. 

And I don't see anything underhanded in dealing openly with Germany and Britain during the war. Not joining your side doesn't make someone underhanded, just discriminating.

The last time I looked, the bubble was still intact and unburst.

Swiss Profiteering

I understand what you're saying, but Switzerland doesn't fund wars. The Swiss government foreign aid program is infinitesimal — much too small to have any effect on anything. And the banks are privately owned. No private bank is going to lend money to both sides of a war (as our government sometimes has). A bank can't afford to lend money to the loser who may not repay his loans.

Swiss & American Defenses

Unfortunately, not a lot has been written in the English language about Switzerland's ingenious World War II defense policies. And I don't have time to try to remedy the lack of material. But I can give two examples.

During World War II, the Swiss government allowed the Nazis to pass through the Swiss Alps to resupply troops in Italy — a very valuable route for the Nazis. The Swiss mined critical spots and told the Nazis that the Swiss would close the supply lines by blowing them up the moment the Nazis started any funny business.

Second, the Swiss made a deal with the Nazis that allowed the Germans to buy machine tools from Swiss companies — but only on condition that Swiss boats be allowed to carry equipment for delivery to the British down the Rhine River to the North Sea, unimpeded by the Nazis.

As for the other question, the Roosevelt administration browbeat the Japanese for two years before the Pearl Harbor attack — demanding that the Japanese give up their colonies and conquests in China and East Asia. The Japanese were absolutely no threat to the United States (just like Iraq in 2003), but Roosevelt made it clear to his subordinates (who later reported his views in their memoirs) that he wanted to lure the Japanese into "firing the first shot" so that America could get into the war against Hitler. (The Japanese and Germans had a mutual defense treaty.)

I don't know of a single historian today who believes the Pearl Harbor attack was either unprovoked or a surprise. The only argument is over whether Roosevelt was right to bully the Japanese into attacking, in order to rally the American people to support U.S. entry into the war.

Here are some links to more detailed information:

The Myths of World War II by Harry Browne
American knowledge of the coming Japanese attack; interview with Robert B. Stinnett
Details of Roosevelt's maneuvering by John Flynn
Why Did Japan Attack Us? by Patrick Buchanan

Predictions

I'm not aware of any pre-war predictions I made. If I've forgotten some, you're free to remind me. But don't confuse me with anyone else.

Pandering to the Crowd?

If we go along with the war hawks, how can we ever expect the war mentality to recede? Someone has to stand up and point out the obvious — that the Bush doctrine has caused tens of millions more people worldwide to believe America is a bully, encouraging more people to support the terrorists.

Maybe we couldn't stop the Iraqi War. But pointing out that politicians lie and that war isn't necessary may cause a few more people to be skeptical the next time — when the President (either Bush or Kerry) is trying to build support for attacking Syria, Iran, or someone else.

We can't determine the truth of a proposition by the number of people it might appeal to. I'm not saying what I think might appeal to Dean supporters. If you really think I am, you don't understand libertarian principles.

Comparing Countries

When your own government is out of control, almost any other country can seem to be more attractive. However, I don't think you'd find Britain to be any freer than America (or even as free).

Click here for Part I of "Is War Necessary?"