The relevant moral community

Richard Lowry notes an unusual bit of news: soldiers in the Iraqi Army have donated $1000 to the victims of the California fires. It's a negligible sum by American standards, but that shouldn't diminish the fact that they sacrificed to make the gift. Richard writes:

Unfortunately, most Americans do not consider Iraqis as people. We see them as terrorists or victims, not as everyday people with the same values as our friends, neighbors and relatives. Yet, most Iraqis are decent human beings with the same concerns, dreams, and compassion as most Americans. They want peace and are concerned about their fellow man.

Is it no wonder that we feel differently about the people of Iraq, when the American media only reports sensational news?

While the American media doesn't do itself any favors, I don't think we should blame the press for American attitudes towards Iraqis. The national debates about immigration and global trade make it clear that there's a strong streak of nationalism (if not xenophobia) in American society. The economics and the politics involved in these debates seems to mask an underlying question: what's the relevant moral community we should be considering?

Here's how George Mason economist Alex Tabbarok breaks down the issue of trade:

Peter wishes to trade with Jose. The individualist says the relevant moral community is Peter and Jose and presumptively no one else. Trade, the right of association, is a human right and on issues of rights the moral community is the individual. When Jose offers Peter a better deal than Joe it's wrong - a moral outrage - for Joe to prevent Jose at gun point from trading with Peter.

The more common view . . . is the nationalist view, the moral community is Peter and Joe. Joe gets a vote on Peter's trades. Peter should be allowed to trade only if both Peter and Joe benefit, otherwise too bad. Jose counts for less.

A third view, that of the liberal internationalist, says that Peter, Jose and Joe count equally and are together the moral community.

Now how does the positive economics apply to these three cases? Peter and Jose presumptively are better off from trade otherwise they wouldn't trade so the individualist economist (the economist who takes Peter and Jose as the relevant moral community) will support free trade. The liberal internationalist will also support free trade because there is a strong argument from positive economics that trade increases total wealth (comparative advantage, specialization, competition etc.).

In between, we have the nationalist economist for whom it depends. The case for trade for the nationalist economist is pretty good - after all the individuals involved benefit and the world benefits - so the case is reasonably strong that Peter and Joe taken together will also benefit especially if we consider many trade pacts on some of which Joe benefits directly. Nevertheless, . . . when you exclude Jose it is possible to come up with examples where Joe's losses exceed Peter's gains.

I would argue, however, that economists are too quick to take the nation as the relevant moral community. It is quite possible, for example, for Peter to benefit from trade but for Peter's city to be harmed, for Peter's state to benefit but for his region to be harmed, for his country to benefit but for his continent to be harmed. Why should we cut the cake in one way, excluding some from the moral community, but not in another? Indeed, geography is not the only way we can define the moral community. Why not ask whether English speakers benefit from free trade or Christians or left handed people? Each of these is just as valid as asking whether the collection of people called the nation benefit from free trade.

I understand individual rights and I understand counting everyone equally but I see less value in counting some in and some out based on arbitrary characteristics like which side of the border the actors fall on.

As some of Alex's commenters point out, this analysis can be applied to immigration as easily as it can be applied to trade.

Idiocy

Sometimes it shocks me that democracy works at all:

Nixon presided over an unprecedented expansion of the welfare state, established affirmative action, created the Environmental Protection Agency, proposed a guaranteed annual income and national health insurance, and established closer relations with communist China and the USSR. But he was still widely perceived as a right-winger. Similarly, liberals rallied around President Bill Clinton, while conservatives rushed to condemn him, despite his endorsement of conservative policies on free trade, welfare reform, crime control, and other important issues. Liberals defended Clinton and conservatives attacked him in large part because of what he represented on a symbolic level as a "draft dodger" and philanderer, rather than on the basis of his substantive policies (Posner 1999). In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the desire of liberal and conservative "fans" to rally around their leader or condemn a perceived ideological adversary blinded them to important aspects of the president’s policies—despite the fact that information about these policies was readily available.

Today, the hostility of partisan liberal Democrats to President George W. Bush, and the desire of partisan conservative Republicans to defend him, have largely blinded many in both groups to his adoption of numerous liberal domestic policies. To take just one example, Bush has presided over the largest expansion of domestic spending since (ironically) the presidency of Richard Nixon (Bartlett 2006). Thus, partisan opinion has to a large extent ignored an important aspect of Bush’s policies.

That's from a paper by Ilya Somin of George Mason University - School of Law. His larger point is that people are much more likely to vote than they are to have any useful understanding of the politicians and platforms that they are voting for. There's nothing to be done about it, really. Republican democracy is ugly and inefficient, but it's so obviously superior to all alternatives that I can't help but believe that America needs to be an exporter of democracy. The world would be a better place if every political system was as messed up as ours.

On the other hand, let's stop with all of these idiotic Rock The Vote campaigns. Our system can function despite voter ignorance, but that doesn't mean we should turn ignorant voting into a civic virtue.

The good old days

Megan McArdle has an uncanny knack for saying what I'm thinking:

Pretty much everything one can think of is better than ever. Wars are fewer, and kill fewer people. Everyone's richer. Racism and xenophobia are bad, but not as bad as they used to be. Women have more freedom and opportunity than at any other moment in world history. Health care is better. Our teeth are cleaner, straighter, and less cavity-filled. We know more, do more, and enjoy more than human beings ever have before. I mean, things may look pretty grim compared to the three years at the end of the last millenium, but that's life: you have good years, then you have less good years, then you have better years again.

But of course, people now in their early twenties don't really remember anything before the late Clinton administration; no wonder everything seems like it's going to hell in a handbasket. Their baseline is an unsustainable economic bubble in an unprecedented peacetime lull following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We're living in the best times this world has ever known, but a lot of people are convinced that America is on its last legs economically and socially. Part of me believes that a big part of the problem is the horrible state of education today--children just aren't learning history in any meaningful sense. It would be really nice if we could fix education by going back to the good old days when history was taught properly. But a bigger part of me suspects that there never were any good old days when history was taught properly. I've said before that some problems have no feasible solutions--this is probably one of those cases.

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 5

I began this series of posts with a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

I've already looked at America's interests, the need for a global military presence and the historical roots of our foreign policy problems. Let's take a look at the last statement: can we trust our enemies to respond to us rationally?

In 1967 Israel concluded that its Arab enemies (Egypt, Syria and Jordan) were incapable of winning a war, but that the Arabs were irrational enough to attack anyway. Israel launched a preemptive attack and won a decisive victory in the Six-day War [10]. In 1973 Israel concluded that its Arab enemies (Egypt and Syria) were incapable of winning a war, and that the Arabs were rational enough to refrain from attacking. Israel ignore several direct warnings and were nearly defeated by a surprise attack in the Yom Kippur War [11]. History is full of cases in which nations and leaders badly miscalculate and pay for their miscalculations. When we predict what the world would look like if America were to withdraw, we shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that leaders throughout the world will understand that it is in their best interest to behave nicely to their neighbors and to America. It's far more likely that some power-hungry regimes will see America's withdrawal as an opportunity. Overestimating their ability to expand their power and underestimating America's willingness to defend its interests in the world, bad actors throughout the world would become more hostile and assertive, not less.

The assumption of rationality is especially misplaced when applied to our terrorist enemies. Al Qaeda doesn't view the world through the lens of realism but through the lens of fantasy [12]. No matter how irrational their plans for establishing an Islamic caliphate or how futile their desire to wage jihad against the West, Islamist terrorists see themselves in engaged in acts of fantastic devotion to their God, and no diplomacy, disengagement or bribe can change their willingness to strike a symbolic blow against their enemies. We are better off forcing them to fight their battles in Iraq (the outcome of which will either be a tremendous symbolic victory for one side or the other, in Al Qaeda's twisted logic) than allowing them space to plot for a bigger, better 9/11.

[10] The Six-Day War
[11] The Yom Kippur War
[12] Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 4

I began this series of posts with a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

I've already looked at America's interests and the need for a global military presence. Let's take a look at the third statement: what role does our past foreign policy decisions play in our analysis of current foreign policy options?

When we examine the world of today and make decisions that will shape the world of the future, we have to understand that the world of today was shaped in the past by real people looking at real circumstances, making really important decisions based on really imperfect information. It's commonly argued that America has created many of the problems we face today by supporting people like Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran and others. It's an easy accusation to make, but it tends to fall apart when our past foreign policy decisions are analyzed in context. Let's take a very brief snapshot of our history for the last century.

We're in Iraq because of 9/11. Regardless what specifically motivated Bush to go to war (WMDs, oil, anti-terrorism, cultural imperialism, whatever), it's hard for me to imagine a world in which 9/11 didn't happen but we invaded Iraq anyway. Why did 9/11 happen? Al Qaeda has tried to justify 9/11 by claiming that it is a response to America's presence in Saudi Arabia, to our attacks against Iraq during and following the first Gulf War and to our support for Israel [6].

Why was America in Saudi Arabia? Because of the stand-off that resulted from the first Gulf War. Why did we fight the first Gulf War? Because Saddam very clearly threatened our national interests by conquering Kuwait and putting his powerful military in easy striking distance of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE [7]. We simply can't risk letting so much the world's oil supply fall under the control of a violent, capricious tyrant.

Why was Saddam powerful enough to attempt the invasion of Kuwait? In part because of U.S. military support during the '80s. Why did the U.S. support Saddam? In general, we supported him because we were in the middle of a cold war and we needed allies in a region that was (because of oil) critically important. More specifically, we supported Saddam because he was a counter-weight to the power of Iran, a country that attacked our embassy and held American diplomats hostage for more than a year.

Iranians attacked our embassy because they thought we were covertly manipulating their government and trying to undermine their Islamic revolution [8]. The Iranians badly misjudged our capabilities and our intentions, but it is true that we were a long-time ally of the Shah (whom they hated). Again, our support of the Shah was based on our strategic need for allies in the region in light of the Cold War that developed after WWII. It's possible to argue that America is at fault for the cold war, but only if you argue that we could have supported White Russian forces and defeated the Bolsheviks by military intervention after WWI [9].

Regarding American support for Israel, that too has an internal logic through history, from a Cold-war desire to support a democratic nation against attacks by soviet supported enemies, back to a decision to support the creation of a homeland for the Jews after the genocide of WWII, back to the historical reality that the land of "Palestine" was merely a province of the Ottoman empire up until British gained Mandate control after defeating the Ottomans in WWI.

Should we have fought Saddam in the first Gulf War? Should we have fought the cold war? Should we have fought WWII? What about WWI? How far back should we go in deciding that America had no right to intervene in the world to protect her own interests? Should we have just decided to let the Brits keep their colonies so that nobody in the world would be offended by our actions?

Our past policies have always been based to some degree on a need to protect American interests throughout the world. Some of those decisions have been flawed but that is unavoidable: we have always had imperfect leaders, they have always been beholden to an imperfect constituency, and no American has ever been blessed with perfect information about present circumstances or the future consequences of various policy options. We are where we are because our past leaders have tried to do what's best for America, and it's impossible to say how much worse our history might look if America had chosen not to intervene in the world.

It's easy to identify various bad apples that have in some ways been supported by America in the past and turned against us, but at the same time we should recognize the positive results of our interference in foreign affairs (a prosperous Western Europe, prosperous Japan and South Korea, a victory in the Cold War, and stable world trade that promotes prosperity in America). Only by ignoring the truth about what happened in the past can you claim that all of our past interventions in the world were unnecessary and counterproductive.

[6] Al Qaeda's Fatwa
[7] John Kifner, New York Times, August 6, 1990
[8] The Fallacy of Power
[9] Toward an Entangling Alliance

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 3

I began this series of posts with a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

I've already looked at America's interests. Let's take a look at the second statement: why do we need a global military presence?

The world is a big place, so logistics matters. When our interests span the globe we have to be able to effectively protect those interests around the world. Our air and naval forces are unmatched in the world, but neither force can be of much use if we don't have a logistical support structure built up that spans the globe. A fleet needs ports and an air force needs air bases. Ports and air bases are only available through the cooperation of allies.

Neither a navy nor an air force is sufficient to truly protect our interests throughout the world because neither force can put boots on the ground. Bombs, torpedoes and cruise missiles can cripple an enemy's economy by wrecking infrastructure and halting trade, but a regime that is willing to let its people suffer is a regime that can ignore our navy and air force if we don't have the capacity to put boots on the ground. While a few marine expeditionary units can be maintained on ships, MEUs simply do not have the firepower or logistical infrastructure necessary to fight and win a long war against a well equipped, large army [4].

If we want to be capable of winning wars like the first Gulf War, we have to be capable of quickly putting a modern army in the field. This is only possible if military equipment is prepositioned around the world. Prepositioning of military equipment again requires allies and basing agreements. If we want to have any chance of effectively intervening around the globe, we must have a logistical footprint of basing and cooperative allies around the globe to support our efforts [5].

[4] Rethinking Army-Marine Corps Roles in Power Projection
[5] The U.S. Army and the New National Security Strategy

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 2

I began this series of posts with a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

Let's take a look at that first statement: what interests does America have that are worth defending with an interventionist foreign policy?

Commerce: we trade with virtually everybody which means Americans and American properties are everywhere, our economy relies on natural resources such as oil, and our prosperity is based in part on a global trade network that is only possible when stability throughout the world allows sea lanes to stay open and global trade to flow freely [1].

Power: All other things being equal, when America faces threats we are better able to deal with those threats if we have more power. Not every opportunity to gain power is worth the price, but sometimes it is absolutely true that we are better off paying a price to gain or maintain power. Additionally, power is only useful if there is a credible possibility that the power will be used. If we are forever demonstrating an absolute unwillingness to use our power, our enemies will learn that it is safe to ignore our power and attack our interests [2].

Honor: we are better off in a world in which we have many friends that want to cooperate with us and few enemies that want to harm us. This means that we have to preserve a reputation for being a good friend as well as a reputation for being a dangerous enemy. If we renege on promises to friends or we
demonstrate a willingness to back down in the face of provocation, we will find ourselves with fewer friends and more enemies [3].

[1] The Pentagon's New Map
[2] While America Sleeps
[3] On the Origins of War

Principles of Foreign Policy -- Part 1

For the last few weeks I've been engaged in a long running email debate with a friend of a friend about the merits of Ron Paul. Yeah, imagine that. Ron Paul is my white whale. Anyway, lately we've been discussing the role of the military in America's foreign policy. The basic issue seems simple enough: should America's military be spread out around the world intervening in the affairs of other nations, or should the military be primarily located within our borders and primarily tasked with protecting our borders?

As I was writing my latest email I realized that there are a lot of unspoken assumptions underlying any proposed strategy for utilizing our military in support of our foreign policy objectives. So I took a step back and laid out the basic assumptions I make when I talk about these issues. Rather than transcribe the entire email in a single post, I'll break it up and look at in a few chunks that are a bit easier to manage. Here's a preview:

I believe we have real interests in the world that we have to defend. Defending those interests is only possible if we have a global military presence. We face real enemies in the world because our historical actions have placed us in conflicts with people that don't like us, but it's wishful thinking to assert that we could have avoided these conflicts in the past and it's foolhardy to pretend that we can avoid more such conflicts in the future. This is especially true because many of our worst enemies in the world are irrational operators whom we can't consistently influence without a credible threat of force.

Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 6

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the sixth in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.
2. Ron Paul on Debt and Taxes.
3. Ron Paul on American Independence and Sovereignty.
4. Ron Paul on War and Foreign Policy.
5. Ron Paul on Life and Liberty.

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding The Second Amendment:

I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

• H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
• H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
• H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
• H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

Once again, Ron Paul brings out the UN boogeyman. As I've said before, the UN is neither so dangerous, nor so useless as Paul suggests. But his objection to the UN doesn't really change my analysis of the underlying issue here, so I'll let it pass...

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

You have the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. As President, I will continue to guard the liberties stated in the Second Amendment.

What he said. Seriously, I can't find any fault in Ron Paul's stance on this issue. The only criticism I can make here is to point out that he repeatedly refers to legislation that he has "introduced". I'm unaware of any legislation that Ron Paul has successfully pushed through to become law (I haven't looked very hard, so it's entirely possible that I'm overlooking something). This just one more indicator that suggests Paul is more concerned with remaining true to his principles than he is with achieving tangible results.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to Social Security.

Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 5

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the fifth in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.
2. Ron Paul on Debt and Taxes.
3. Ron Paul on American Independence and Sovereignty.
4. Ron Paul on War and Foreign Policy.

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding Life and Liberty:

The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

I completely agree with Ron Paul's opposition to legalized abortion.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I appreciate Paul's goal here--I think we'd be better off if abortion policy was a state issue, not a federal issue. I don't know enough about constitutional law to know if his approach in this legislation has any merit. My gut tells me that the Supreme Court would object to this approach and would declare this law to be unconstitutional, since the Court long ago declared itself the arbiter of the constitutionality of state laws. My gut tells me that a better approach would be to overturn Roe v Wade via constitutional amendment. My intestinal tract has never been known as a great constitutional scholar though, so your mileage may vary.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

Again, I completely agree with Ron Paul's opposition to legalized abortion. I think his legislative efforts have been largely quixotic, but that seems to be Paul's modus operandi. While it's true that Paul's principled opposition to abortion is incredibly consistent, I doubt that his approach would be much more effective than the other alternatives. My agreement with Paul's goals in this area aren't enough to persuade me that I must support him.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to The Second Amendment.

Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 4

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the fourth in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.
2. Ron Paul on Debt and Taxes.
3. Ron Paul on American Independence and Sovereignty.
   

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding War and Foreign Policy:

The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Ron Paul begins by attacking Bush's Iraq policy on three fronts: first, by claiming that it "was sold to us with false information"; second, by arguing that it has increased the danger of terrorism, finally by stating that its costs have been high.

Was the war in Iraq "sold to us with false information"? It's possible that Paul uses the phrase "false information" instead of "lies" precisely because he knows that the intelligence reports regarding WMDs in Iraq were sincerely believed by intelligence communities both foreign and domestic, by national leaders from both parties and by foreign governments. It seems clear that Ron Paul wants to imply that the Bush administration lied to America, but he doesn't come right out and say that. In other words, Ron Paul is either being dishonest by trying to imply something that he knows isn't true, or he sincerely believes that Bush lied. In either case, this opening statement doesn't reflect well on Paul's fitness to serve as President.

Has the war in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism? Al Qaeda didn't need the excuse of a war in Iraq to launch attacks against our African embassies in 1998, against the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 or against our mainland on 9/11. Al Qaeda may be using Iraq as a recruiting tool, but the important question is how future events in Iraq affect al Qaeda's recruiting efforts. If the U.S. withdraws in defeat, al Qaeda's propaganda will turn their victory into an even greater recruiting tool. If the U.S. perseveres and is successful in building up an Iraqi state that rejects terrorism, al Qaeda will have suffered a clear defeat that no amount of propaganda will be able to spin. Which path forward is most likely to lead to reduced terrorism? As I argued earlier this year, our best hope of truly defeating al Qaeda is to keep them fighting in Iraq:

This war isn't about WMDs alone, or about oil, or even about deposing a cruel dictator. Rather, in Iraq we have an opportunity to redefine the cultural landscape of the Middle East. By giving common Iraqis a shot at real freedom we threaten the cultural foundations upon which Islamic terrorism is built. So Al Qaeda must fight in Iraq, but theirs is a defensive war fought on territory of our choosing, in their own backyard.

Al Qaeda can not defeat us in a conventional war, so they resort to terror tactics, to suicide bombings and IEDs and kidnappings. The purpose of these tactics seems to be two-fold: to erode American support for the war and also to destroy Iraq's fledgling democracy in civil war. American support is eroding and Iraq is dangerously close to civil war, but Al Qaeda's tactics also pose a danger to their own existence. With one bloody attack on civilians after another, the Iraqi people are learning who their real enemies are. Already we see signs of Sunni tribes uniting to fight against Al Quada. If we hold on, Al Quada may yet destroy their domestic support in Iraq and the wider Middle East. And therein lies our hope of really solving the problem of Islamic terror.

Is Paul right to say that the costs of our war in Iraq been too high? To honestly evaluate the costs of Iraq we have to consider both the perspective of the past as well as the perspective of the future:

1. What were the perceived costs of war vs. the perceived costs of inaction when Bush made the decision to go to war in 2003? As I've already argued, the decision to go to war was made on the basis of incomplete information, when consensus opinion held that Saddam had WMD programs and that his regime posed significant risks to America in the future. In retrospect, the costs of allowing Saddam to keep his WMDs seem negligible--after all, he didn't really have any WMDs. But at the time the decision was made, Bush had to act on the basis of evidence that made the costs of inaction seem high. If Paul sincerely believes that Bush was lying about the evidence, then it makes sense to argue that the lives and money we have lost in waging this war are too high of a cost. But if Paul believes that we should have avoided war even if it were true that Saddam possessed WMDs, I question his wisdom.
   


2. What will the costs of war vs. the costs of inaction look like 25 or 50 years from now? History has a nasty habit of looking very different with a few years of perspective. Right now it's easy to point at Bush's decision in 2003 and argue that he was wrong, based on 2007 evidence. But the real benefits to be obtained by planting a pro-democratic, non-Islamist regime in the Middle East will take years to fully develop, just as the real benefits of planting democracy in Japan and Germany took decades to play out. By completely ignoring the long-term benefits and focusing solely on the short-term costs, Paul is displaying exactly the kind of naivety that he accuses Bush of. As one supporter of the war argued before we invaded Iraq:

   In a new millennium where a few diseased people can carry a suitcase with the power to kill millions, the lesson we must learn is simply this: the only way we will be safe, prosperous and free is when everyone is safe, prosperous and free.
   
   Critics of this War on Terror call it ‘eternal’ and ‘never-ending’ as a means of discouraging us from fighting it at all.
   
   But there can be an end to this war. It will end when all people are inside the bubble we have built for ourselves and our children – warm, well-fed, free to pursue their dreams and ambitions, their minds and bodies and women liberated, racial and tribal hatreds put aside, and so on.

3. Additionally, Ron Paul can't simply argue that we never should have invaded in the first place. As a presidential candidate, he can't turn back the clock to 2003 and undo Bush's decision. As I already argued, a pullout from Iraq will benefit al Qaeda and lead to a higher threat of future terrorism. Ron Paul only mentions the costs associated with continuing to fight the war. These costs are real, but they should be weighed against the equally real costs of withdrawing from the war. If Paul wants to lead this country effectively, he'll need to make decisions based on current reality, not reality as of 2003.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Washington's warning against getting involved in foreign alliances came in the context of a war between Britain and France, with various prominent Americans arguing that the U.S. should ally with one or the other of the foreign powers. Thomas Jefferson was one of these national leaders who advocated closer ties with France.

This is the same Thomas Jefferson that as our minister to France attempted to form an international coalition to combat the Barbary Pirates. The European nations refused to work together with America, so as President Jefferson sent the fledgling U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean to protect our commercial interests by fighting a war against the Barbary Pirates. Jefferson may have talked about avoiding foreign entanglements, but his actions as a national leader prove that he was both willing to work with foreign nations when circumstances dictated and was willing to fight wars in foreign lands for the sake of protecting America's commerce.

In our global economy, America's commercial interests span the globe. Because no other country or coalition of countries is willing or able to effectively protect America's interests abroad, our government has to send our armed forces around the world to do that job. Paul advocates withdrawing our troops from the work they do around the world, but he neither acknowledges that America has interests that spread beyond our borders nor offers any mechanism by which these interests can be protected after our troops are withdrawn.

It's true that our troops are spread thin, but the only "new calls for a draft" that I have seen have come in the form of a cynical ploy by anti-war Democrat Chuck Rangel. The Rangel bill failed in a 402-2 vote, in part because not even Chuck Rangel was willing to vote for it. Since then, the all-volunteer military has continued to meet recruiting goals, and veterans of the Iraq war have continued to reenlist in large numbers.

I think a big part of Paul's objection to the war in Iraq is his insistence that military action is only constitutional if Congress explicitly declares war. How he reconciles this view with the fact that Jefferson took us into an undeclared war with the Barbary pirates, I don't know. So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never seen fit to rule on any legal challenge to our previous undeclared wars. If the Supreme Court accepts the constitutionality of an undeclared war, Ron Paul's objections are moot.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Objecting to the UN's involvement in Iraq is disingenuous at best. We didn't go to war in Iraq because the UN twisted our arms and forced us into it. We used the Iraq's violation of a UN resolution as our most prominent casus belli, but Bush led us into war because he believed it was a war we needed to fight. The UN was more of an impediment to Bush's foreign policy goals than a motivating factor.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

I'm not going to argue that foreign aid is a great thing--it's often inefficient and counterproductive, harming the people it's supposed to help. The specific charges that Paul makes are somewhat overblown, though. Our decision to arm the Afghans against the Soviets was made in an entirely different strategic context. We had a cold war to win, and we won it.

Additionally, Bin Laden may have begun his career as a jihadi in Afghanistan, but he was no creation of the CIA. Reading "The Looming Tower: al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11", my impression is that Bin Laden's biggest accomplishment in Afghanistan was managing to avoid getting killed. He isn't dangerous because we armed or supplied him, he's dangerous because he is effective in selling an ideology of jihad and in gathering money and recruits to his cause.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

If America is going to be involved in the world, we have to be prepared to defend our interests abroad. This has been true since the earliest days of our republic. In a perfect world, our interests would not need to be defended, but we don't live in such a world. Ron Paul doesn't seem to recognize this fact.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to Life and Liberty.

Deconstructing America's Savior - Part 3

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the third in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

Previous posts in the series:

1. An introduction to Ron Paul's policy platform.
2. Ron Paul on Debt and Taxes.

This time, let's pick apart his policy statement regarding American Independence and Sovereignty:

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

Conflating the International Criminal Court, the trade organizations (GATT and WTO) and the trade agreements (NAFTA and CAFTA) into a single argument is kind of weird. Let's address these claims one at a time.

The International Criminal Court -- Here's Wikipedia's description of the ICC:

The court came into being on July 1, 2002 — the date its founding treaty, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, entered into force — and it can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date.

As of October 2007, 105 states are members of the Court. A further 41 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. However, a number of states, including China, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.

In other words, the ICC is an international organization created by a treaty which America has not signed. If the ICC wishes to indict U.S. citizens for war crimes, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop them. If the member states of the ICC wish to enforce ICC convictions of U.S. citizens, they'll have to go through the U.S. military to do so. Somehow, I'm not terribly concerned about this prospect.

GATT and the WTO -- Neither the former GATT nor its successor WTO has ever had any enforcement mechanism above and beyond the ability of its member nations to impose trade sanctions (i.e., retaliatory tariffs). This is a capability that individual nations have always possessed. See below for more information about this point.

NAFTA and CAFTA -- The NAFTA and CAFTA agreements are treaties that our elected officials ratified. These are treaties, not international organizations with powers of enforcement. These agreements reduce the quotas, tariffs and subsidies that impose silent but very real economic costs on all Americans. In seeking to overturn these agreements Ron Paul is revealing himself to be more concerned about abstract notions of sovereignty than he is about achieving the best economic system that is politically feasible.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

The Cato Institue has an excellent paper which puts these claims about the WTO in proper perspective. Here's a quick excerpt:

Critics across the political spectrum allege that the World Trade Organization undermines the ability of the United States to determine its own trade, tax, environmental, and foreign policy. But an examination of how the WTO really works reveals that no such threat exists to U.S. sovereignty. The WTO is a contract organization that arbitrates disputes among its members on the basis of rules that all have agreed to follow. Like every other member, the United States has the power to veto any agreement of which it disapproves.

The WTO wields no power of enforcement. It has no authority or power to levy fines, impose sanctions, change tariff rates, or modify domestic laws in any way to bring about compliance. If a member refuses to comply with rules it previously agreed to follow, all the WTO can do is approve a request by the complaining member to impose sanctions—a “power” that member governments have always been able to wield against each other.

In other words, the members of the WTO have agreed, by treaty, to abide by defined rules of "fair trade". When a nation violates those rules, the WTO is powerless to punish the offending nation. All the WTO can do is grant an air of legitimacy to the retaliatory action which the victim nations would have imposed anyway. Congress can't be forced to change our laws by the WTO, but Congress generally does choose to voluntarily reform laws which violate the WTO rules to avoid trade sanctions. This is a good thing, unless you like the economic dislocation caused by trade wars. If Ron Paul thinks that starting trade wars is a good idea, he doesn't need my vote.

NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

This is blatantly false. Ron Paul either hasn't done his research or he is misrepresenting the truth when he claims that there is a plot in the works to "create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico". Take a look at this post for a sane discussion of the truth about the so-called North American Union. On this issue, I find it very difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that Ron Paul is a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

Sure, the UN would love to have an independent source of income. But Paul is overstating both the scope of the threat and his role in defeating that threat. It's true that various ideas have been floated for granting the UN an authority to collect taxes, but no attempt has ever been made to actually implement these ideas. As for his role in defeating this threat: Ron Paul's own press release states that he inserted some language into a bill that "prohibits the Treasury from paying UN dues if the organization attempts to implement or impose any kind of tax on US citizens." The UN wasn't actively attempting to impose a tax, but Ron Paul defeated that non-existent attempt at taxation by proposing legislation that would retaliate for any such attempt, just in case such an attempt were to be made. Well done, I guess.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

Regarding the wisdom of withdrawing from trade organizations and treaties, see my above comments for some of my objections. With regard to the UN, I think the costs of withdrawing from the UN outweigh the benefits.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the UN. Its member states include a long list of corrupt, tyrannical regimes that possess no moral legitimacy. It sickens me to see Americans arguing that we are morally required to submit our national will to the dictates of such rabble as Russia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Burma and the Sudan.

But withdrawal from the UN doesn't really gain us anything--we have a veto on the Security Council and we haven't been shy about using it. The UN dues we pay are essentially a rounding error in our national budget, yet we have seen that withholding those dues is an effective lever for preventing the UN from acting in complete contradiction to our national interests. By effectively using our veto and the power of the purse, we have protected our sovereignty from harm.

Additionally, the UN isn't entirely useless. The UN is a weak institution, but even in its weakness it can be used to provide us some legitimacy when we must act in the world to protect our national interests. To withdraw from the UN entirely would be to forsake the use of this tool against our enemies and spite our allies in the process.

Ron Paul seems to be obsessed with the idea of national sovereignty. His single minded dedication to this principle has him advocating the abandonment of international institutions like the UN that help us protect our national interests. Worse is his belief that we should abandon free trade deals that generate enormous economic dividends for America.

What really leaves me flabbergasted is his paranoia regarding the North American Union--there's simply no evidence to suggest that any such Union is being contemplated by any, much less by all, of the North American governments. Ron Paul apparently feels that this threat is real enough to warrant discussing it as a central component of his policy platform. I think it's an imaginary threat that is best dealt with by authors of speculative fiction. One of us is utterly wrong.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to War and Foreign Policy.