# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  National Review: Would a Libertarian Military Be More Lethal?

## TaftFan

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...l-david-french

----------


## tod evans

Nah, they'd argue about every damn thing...




Off to read the article.

----------


## dannno

or "How a Neocon Learned to Fall in Love With Rand Paul"

Hopefully we'll continue to see more of this.

----------


## amy31416

The comments are....very neo-libertarian.

----------


## mczerone

Decisive military victories are not what the ideal, rational, self-interested modern empire desires.

It wants spending programs, foreign unrest, universal reach, and just-enough-so-we-don't-lose military power.

And that's exactly what it gets. Just like schools are remarkably successful at achieving the true goals (conformity, distraction, obedience, and infighting), the military is remarkably successful at achieving the true goals.

----------


## anaconda

> Decisive military victories are not what the ideal, rational, self-interested modern empire desires.
> 
> It wants spending programs, foreign unrest, universal reach, and just-enough-so-we-don't-lose military power.
> 
> And that's exactly what it gets. Just like schools are remarkably successful at achieving the true goals (conformity, distraction, obedience, and infighting), the military is remarkably successful at achieving the true goals.


Well said.

----------


## anaconda

Good article. The last sentence is particularly compelling. I hope Rand becomes the most bad ass Commander In Chief candidate imaginable come 2016. Maybe Rand should look into the Israeli defense strategy of responding to an attack with a retaliation many times bigger than the attack upon them, as a deterrent to their enemies. This is something that a "libertarian" U.S. military could be well suited for.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Good article. The last sentence is particularly compelling. I hope Rand becomes the most bad ass Commander In Chief candidate imaginable come 2016. *Maybe Rand should look into the Israeli defense strategy of responding to an attack with a retaliation many times bigger than the attack upon them, as a deterrent to their enemies. This is something that a "libertarian" U.S. military could be well suited for*.


Except the Israeli regime doesn't usually declare war when they do that-much like past few POTUSes have unilaterally gone to war. (unless you know something of Mideast politics I don't)  I would hope Rand doesn't consider the Israeli "defense" strategy.

----------


## anaconda

> Except the Israeli regime doesn't usually declare war when they do that-much like past few POTUSes have unilaterally gone to war. (unless you know something of Mideast politics I don't)  I would hope Rand doesn't consider the Israeli "defense" strategy.


I'm not condoning Israel's tactics as justified. I just read that they have traditionally responded to attacks with not just in kind retaliation, but rather with greatly disproportionate force, as a warning and deterrence to potential hostiles. Always struck me as a solid strategy from a game theory point of view.

----------


## amy31416

> I'm not condoning Israel's tactics as justified. I just read that they have traditionally responded to attacks with not just in kind retaliation, but rather with greatly disproportionate force, as a warning and deterrence to potential hostiles. Always struck me as a solid strategy from a game theory point of view.


Except it doesn't address any true grievance another country may have against us and is just as unethical as Israel's battering of Gaza. And that is pretty well proven to not work, so far.

Their "shock and awe" campaigns are making them more and more isolated. If we roasted Mexico because of an attack, then end up with all of South/Central America ready to attack us, with their allies backing them (perhaps Russia/China?)--how is that a great strategy?

----------


## Origanalist

> I'm not condoning Israel's tactics as justified. I just read that they have traditionally responded to attacks with not just in kind retaliation, but rather with greatly disproportionate force, as a warning and deterrence to potential hostiles. Always struck me as a solid strategy from a game theory point of view.


Nuke the world.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...l-david-french


Is this what somee neocon had hooped in the 'Rand will improve as warmomnger" discussion in GD?




> Among the more promising aspects of Rand Paul’s foreign policy  address to the Heritage Foundation were his clear identification of our  enemy and his realization that they can’t be appeased:Some  libertarians argue that western occupation fans the flames of radical  Islam – I agree. But I don’t agree that absent western occupation that  radical Islam “goes quietly into that good night.” I don’t agree with  FDR’s VP Henry Wallace that the Soviets (or radical Islam in today’s  case) can be discouraged by “the glad hand and the winning smile.”And . . .Radical  Islam is no fleeting fad but a relentless force. Though at times  stateless, radical Islam is also supported by radicalized nations such  as Iran. Though often militarily weak, radical Islam makes up for  its lack of conventional armies with unlimited zeal.With  these statements, Senator Paul demonstrated more clarity about our  enemy than the Obama administration has throughout five years of combat.  Now, the key is to supplement that clarity with a coherent doctrine  that combines respect for liberty and the desire for a leaner  military with overwhelming destructive force applied to our enemies.  Senator Paul has a budget plan,  but a budget plan isn’t military doctrine, and that’s the next step for  a libertarian movement that is growing more compelling with each  governmental failure.


Heritage fundies being Neocon central, it seems to the untrained eye that he ws pandering to them unless he actually is bit naive on foreign policy. He didn't mention Saudi Arabia/Palestinian groups but skips to Iran ( most of reported 9/11 attackers were Saudis) . When ws last time Iran attacked its neighbors?  Iran might be threat to Israel, not to US.

Does Rand understand what /who is "radicak Islam" and why US/Israel support it?
*
How would Rand have responded to 9/11?  * 

This Q is for anyone here who support Heritage fundies or perported "promising" Rand future foreign policy speculated in this neeconish article. Reserving judgment is not an option here since all the facts are known by now.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Maybe Rand should look into the Israeli defense strategy of responding to an attack with a retaliation many times bigger than the attack upon them, as a deterrent to their enemies.


What in your view caused 9/11?  
How would you have responded to it if you were POTUS?

----------


## anaconda

> Nuke the world.


No nukes. And I was only considering an unsolicited attack on my own country, and a non interventionist strategy for defense.

----------


## anaconda

> What in your view caused 9/11?  
> How would you have responded to it if you were POTUS?


First thing I would have done is controlled the narrative. The whole idea that photos of 19 alleged hijackers instantly appeared in the newspapers would not have happened or would have been retracted immediately. I would have made sure that the FBI did not issue propaganda. I would have, as President, announced that we were very concerned that this might be a domestic terror plot.

I would have preserved the crime scene, done a detailed investigation, and indicted several Americans to get people to begin confessing with a few carefully placed immunity deals. Then let each domino start knocking the next over.

If the evidence actually showed that 9-11 was caused by Islamic terrorists, I honestly don't know. I believe I would seek a joint operation with the host country. But blood thirsty American voters would not be patient with that. I suppose a precision special forces operation with Letters of Marque & Reprisal, as Ron Paul suggested, would be the inevitable.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

Ok, I washoping to get some idea of Rand's FP from your answer as I assumed you were supporterof his FP but it appears major differnces there.

----------


## anaconda

> Ok, I washoping to get some idea of Rand's FP from your answer as I assumed you were supporterof his FP but it appears major differnces there.


I don't know what Rand's foreign policy is, since he has not said exactly. My ONLY point here is that there must be many ways for Rand to assure the voters that he will preside over a frightfully lethal military that the voters will be more than pleased with, but from which he can still extract significant budget cuts. If Rand explains things effectively, he will have the public thinking that they will have never been safer. Which will also be the truth. But Rand needs to paint the imagery. A movie like Top Gun probably makes Americans feel safer than hearing most politicians talk about it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't know what Rand's foreign policy is, since he has not said exactly. My ONLY point here is that there must be many ways for Rand to assure the voters that he will preside over a frightfully lethal military that the voters will be more than pleased with, but from which he can still extract significant budget cuts. If Rand explains things effectively, he will have the public thinking that they will have never been safer. Which will also be the truth. But Rand needs to pant the imagery. A movie like Top Gun probably makes Americans feel safer than hearing most politicians talk about it.


Not really hard.  Bring them all home and promise to unleash them on anyone who actually does attack the US.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> I don't know what Rand's foreign policy is, since he has not said exactly. My ONLY point here is that there must be many ways for Rand to assure the voters that he will preside over a frightfully lethal military that the voters will be more than pleased with, but from which he can still extract significant budget cuts. If Rand explains things effectively, he will have the public thinking that they will have never been safer. Which will also be the truth. But Rand needs to pant the imagery. A movie like Top Gun probably makes Americans feel safer than hearing most politicians talk about it.


I wasn't sure what exactky you were proposing as future FP but citing policy tactics of the most hated state in the world as a model seemed like pretty bad advice. You want US to model after a state that has become the  top terrorism target in the world and resultingly a full Police State with its citizens living in perpetual fear/insecurity of attack, TSA style searches of  people going to Pizza shops, bus/train/plane travel  is not good model for anyone wishing to live free.

----------


## anaconda

> I wasn't sure what exactky you were proposing as future FP but citing policy tactics of the most hated state in the world as a model seemed like pretty bad advice. You want US to model after a state that has become the  top terrorism target in the world and resultingly a full Police State with its citizens living in perpetual fear/insecurity of attack, TSA style searches of  people going to Pizza shops, bus/train/plane travel  is not good model for anyone wishing to live free.


I'm sorry I'm failing so miserably at making my point. I was merely suggesting a hypothetical peaceful and noninterventionist U.S. might consider a policy of harsh retaliation as a response to an unprovoked attack by another nation state. Just because a state uses their military for evil does not necessarily invalidate their military tactics. It would not make sense to say that Rommel's tank tactics are invalid because he was a Nazi.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> I don't know what Rand's foreign policy is, since he has not said exactly. My ONLY point here is that there must be many ways for Rand to assure the voters that he will preside over a frightfully lethal military that the voters will be more than pleased with, but from which he can still extract significant budget cuts. If Rand explains things effectively, he will have the public thinking that they will have never been safer. Which will also be the truth. But Rand needs to paint the imagery. A movie like Top Gun probably makes Americans feel safer than hearing most politicians talk about it.


Well even militarily tactcs wise they are no longer security or awe inspiring, in there last war in 2006 they were defeated by a militia group  Hezbullah.  In past 2-3 decades they had been  fighting with and bombing a mostly unarmed people trapped in an occupied prison, which is a cowardly fight for most honorable militaries standards. 
I think I know what you mean now, there are better analogies to project strong power and resolve.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> I'm sorry I'm failing so miserably at making my point. I was merely suggesting a hypothetical peaceful and noninterventionist U.S. might consider a policy of harsh retaliation as a response to an unprovoked attack by another nation state. Just because a state uses their military for evil does not necessarily invalidate their military tactics. It would not make sense to say that Rommel's tank tactics are invalid because he was a Nazi.



Well even militarily tactcs wise they are no longer security or awe  inspiring, in there last war in 2006 they were defeated by a militia  group  Hezbullah.  In past 2-3 decades they had been  fighting with and  bombing a mostly unarmed defenseless people trapped in an occupied prison, which is a  cowardly fight for most honorable militaries' standards. 
I think I know what you mean now, there are better analogies to project strong power and resolve while remaining honorable.

Warrior spirit sample:
*IDF detains 5-year old Palestinian rock thrower*
Jerusalem Post-2 hours ago
The NGO on Wednesday complained to the legal adviser in Judea and Samaria that the IDF acted illegally according to Israeli law by detaining ...

----------


## Philhelm

> Good article. The last sentence is particularly compelling. I hope Rand becomes the most bad ass Commander In Chief candidate imaginable come 2016. Maybe Rand should look into the Israeli defense strategy of responding to an attack with a retaliation many times bigger than the attack upon them, as a deterrent to their enemies. This is something that a "libertarian" U.S. military could be well suited for.


I would love to hear him say something like, "My objective is for the United States to enter an era of peace; however, woe upon those who would attack the United States.  The response would be swift and fierce, and for a thousand years our enemies would speak of the United States with both awe and terror.  Their men put to the sword, their women raped, their children enslaved, their homes burned, and their soil salted."

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> I would love to hear him say something like, "My objective is for the United States to enter an era of peace; however, woe upon those who would attack the United States.  The response would be swift and fierce, and for a thousand years our enemies would speak of the United States with both awe and terror.  *Their men put to the sword, their women raped, their children enslaved, their homes burned, and their soil salted."*


You are referring to Old Testament style justice system it seems. 
Reminded of this recent real news.




> Accused war criminal soldier under Obama command who murdered 16  civilians in cold blood including children, women and then burnt their  bodies will not be executed apparently.  Afghan family members of killed  vow revenge attacks.
> 
> *Afghan Massacre: US Soldier To Plead Guilty*
> 
> *Staff Sergeant Robert Bales is expected to admit killing 16 Afghans in their villages in order to avoid the death penalty.*
> 
>                                             10:41pm UK, Wednesday 29 May 2013             
>          Staff Sergeant Robert Bales is awaiting trial for killing 16 civilians
>          The graves of some of the victims
> ...

----------


## pcosmar

> * Would a Libertarian Military Be More Lethal?*


WTF?

Why would anyone want to be more lethal that the sick governments presently?

More lethal that several Nuclear Armed nations with a MAD mentality?

Sick and twisted glorification of warfare.

----------

