Some say that I’m out of line in denigrating the Bushies’ handling of the so-called War on Terror without proposing what actually should be done. Fair enough.
It’s quite true that Islamicists are threatened by, and dislike, Western culture – but that has little to do with why this has turned into a shooting war. Although it’s possible, I suppose, for the U.S., at some indeterminate cost, to extirpate the Islamicists worldwide, creating a Pax Americanus for a few years, my bet is that the U.S. government is over its head, and is doing no more than sowing dragons’ teeth.
Further, using high-tech weapons to fight this war is like using battleships in World War II, or cavalry in World War I. I’m not sure there has ever been a modern war the generals didn’t think they’d win by using the best weapons from the last conflict. The most likely consequence of these immensely expensive weapons is to accelerate the inevitable bankruptcy of the U.S. government. But then, I always look at the bright side.
Recognizing that the Forever War will go on, more-or-less … forever … barring a change in U.S. strategy, my solution is to radically change U.S. strategy. That means, first, completely withdrawing US troops from all foreign countries. They’re not defending America, but acting as provocations, and making enemies. And, second, abolish all foreign aid and military aid, and disengage from all military alliances – prominently including NATO and the U.N.
These things are actually doable, even in today’s context. If this had been done in years past, there would likely never have been a 9-11 event. My personal druthers, of course, would be to abolish most of the U.S. government, including in this context, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, the DEA and Homeland Security. But even I believe that to be politically impossible.
Fine. But what would I have done, if I had been in Bush’s position, in today’s world after 9-11?
Certainly not invade Afghanistan. As long as the U.S. still has something that passes for a constitution (notwithstanding the fact that it’s mostly a dead letter), I would prefer to do something constitutional. The rarely read document contains, almost unknown to Boobus Americanus, a provision (Article I, Section 8) allowing for “Letters of Marque and Reprisal,” which is to say, privateers – units licensed by their own governments to fight a war.
Privateering, which has been around (in a modern context) since at least the 16th century, originated as a way for merchants and shippers to recover value if their property was stolen by a foreign country. Ships flying that nation’s colors would be captured, taken to a neutral port, and have the action adjudicated. The incentive for the privateer was a fat commission on the auctioned vessel and its contents.
Eight hundred privateers were licensed in the Revolution. In the War of 1812, the 500-odd licensed American privateers took about 1,750 British ships.
Why, if privateering was so successful, has it disappeared? Governments of the time considered privateers to be the terrorists of their day, and they were abolished by international agreement in the mid-19th century. The increasingly large-standing armies and navies of the time, like the Post Office, or any other government agency, didn’t like to be compared with entrepreneurs. But entrepreneurial privateers, mercenaries, private detectives and bounty hunters were then, and are now, by far the best way to rid the world of undesirable elements.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, a group of American businessmen, headed by one Edward Lozzi of Beverly Hills, Calif., was apparently intending to offer a $1 billion bounty to any private citizens who brought in the perpetrators, dead or alive. Ross Perot used private forces to free his employees trapped in Iran in 1979. The only really successful military force in Sierra Leone was Executive Outcomes. If the mercenaries had been left alone, and the U.N. had been kept out, Katanga would have split off from the Congo in the ’60s, and things could only have been better than they turned out.
Are mercenaries effective as soldiers? Extremely. The best fighting force in the world, man for man, has always been the French Foreign Legion. Although the examples from history are legion, it’s possible to get an even better idea of how things might be from literature.
I submit Ragnar Danesjold from “Atlas Shrugged,” and Captain Nemo from “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea” as two examples. Television offers “Paladin” from “Have Gun, Will Travel.” An excellent (and very funny) movie illustrating what would likely happen if soldiers are on commission is Clint Eastwood’s movie “Kelly’s Heroes.” Those who think war can be fun will be especially entertained.
I’m quite anti-war in general principle, of course – war is the health of the state. That’s not to say, however, I don’t think there are many individuals and groups that need killing – although reasonable men can differ about who they might be. That being the case, I believe that if someone (like Bush, say) wants to go out and do some killing, he ought to do it for his own account. I certainly don’t want to be forced to pay for his notions, or be considered guilty of them simply because I’m an American.
For those of you who are interested in a complete explanation of how all this would work in practice, I suggest “The Market for Liberty,” by Morris and Linda Tannehill ($11.50, Laissez Faire Books, telephone number: 415-541-9780.
