No.
What they do hate is the military's unnecessary, unconstitutional, and immoral acts of aggression. Laurence Vance explains:
First and foremost is the claim that antiwar libertarians hate the military. I don’t recall ever writing anywhere that I hated the military. And neither do I remember reading where some other antiwar libertarian said that he hated the military. I hate many things that the military does, and think I have good reasons for doing so, as I mention below. I certainly don’t hate any individual members of the military or any other organization. I can’t speak for all antiwar libertarians, but here are some things I hate about the military:
- I hate the military fighting without a constitutional congressional declaration of war.
- I hate the military garrisoning the planet with bases.
- I hate the military targeting impressionable high school students (thanks to the NCLB act).
- I hate military recruiters lying to potential recruits.
- I hate the military fighting foreign wars.
- I hate the military fighting unjust wars of aggression.
- I hate the military invading and unleashing violence and civil unrest in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- I hate the military bombing and destroying Iraq and Afghanistan.
- I hate the military killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.
- I hate the military maintaining troops in Germany, Italy, and Japan when World War II ended in 1945.
- I hate the military stationing troops in 150 different regions of the world.
- I hate the military recruiting terrorists and feeding insurgencies by its foreign occupations.
- I hate military chaplains praying with troops before they unleash death and destruction.
- I hate the military doing anything other than actually defending the country.
- I hate the military perpetuating the myth that they are defending our freedoms when the more the troops defend our freedoms the more our freedoms are taken away.
- I hate the military perpetuating the myth that I couldn’t write the things I do if it weren’t for the U.S. military when the truth is I wouldn’t need to write the things I do if it weren’t for the actions of the U.S. military.
Read the rest here.
I can agree what the author is saying; however, I don't think the Military is to blame. They have to take orders from their Commander in Chief. The military only gets these authorities from executive officials and I don't think they are to blame.
We have to remember that the unconstitutional wars that are fought are initiated by elected officials, not the military. So in my opinion, we should emphasize blame to those elected officials, instead of blaming the military (who only follow the orders).
And that's why Nazi soldiers are innocent.......
Absolutely they are. Would you try to argue that all German soldiers in WWII were war criminals?
"I vas just following orders." No, that doesn't work. Every individual is responsible for what they do.
Ok, I should explain.
If you slid a Jew into an oven, then yes, regardless of orders, you are guilty of a crime.
But Germans that served in the military and fought in the War, who had nothing to do with the Holocaust, were no more guilty of anything than British and American troops were.
"I hate military recruiters lying to potential recruits."
Agreed.
"I hate the military targeting impressionable high school students."
Strongly disagree. I suppose the author would rather our military recruit feeble old men. Sure - recruiters should not lie to get people to join. A recuiter's honesty should be enough to turn away anyone, even an 'impressionable' high school student. What's all this about not recruiting from the high school population? Stupid - that's what it is.
The military shouldn't recruit period.
I respect your opinion, but being a supporter of a strong national defense, I cannot possibly agree with you.
I don't think a strong national defense requires a publicly funded military.
That's an interesting thought. But how else would a military be funded? It is either publically funded through taxes or private donations. Assuming it is private donations, how could we possibly expect to have the funds to build a powerful military? Honestly, there just wouldn't be the funds. That was one of the reasons that the Articles of Confederation failed.
The only other option I can see is that we have no standing army, and instead guarantee the 2nd Ammendment rights of all Americans to provide defense. Of course I do not advocate that at all (having a completely civilian army), but its an interesting idea.
Would you be in favour of Obama's proposed "civilian defense force," a la Mao's Red Guards.? This type of thing is the only alternative I can imagine and I assume you wouldn't want that. That or militias made up of private citizens I guess.
Being realistic, if we didn't have an Air Force and Navy and something powerful other than individuals with small arms though, I don't think we could survive as a nation in the 21st Century.
You can write this blog because of the men who died for America in the Revolutionary war, you can write this blog because of men who died in World War II defending liberty and freedom, you can write this blog because men died spreading freedom and liberty for ALL not just Americans.
If we didn't have the bases all over the world we wouldn't be what we are. If we hadn't stepped into WWII All of Europe would be white, blonde and blue eyed. And don't think for a second that he wouldn't have come over here too. You are so arrogant to post such a blog and then say that you aren't anti-military. that is like Michael Moore saying that he has never benefitted from Capitalism yet did because the free market determined that "some" people wanted to pay to see it. Without a strong national defense, we become just another nation that gets overthrown and invaded. I was a fan of YAL on FB, but now I am questioning that.
I agree with about half of what you wrote. I think our involvement in WW2, notably in the Pacific, was a justified defense of liberty. Our involvement in the Revolutionary War was in defense of our liberty, unquestionably. There have been many other instances throughout history where brave Americans have died to defend this country.
However, I take issue with your claim that Hitler would have come here to attack us. Launching an invasion from across the Atlantic ocean would have been an insurmountable logistical nightmare. Let's be realistic here. I also take issue with your claim that, "If we didn't have the bases all over the world we wouldn't be what we are." I think our greatness is primarily measured by the character of our people, and by our immense wealth and prosperity. Our mighty military is a means of defense to ensure those great things are never taken from external forces. Having bases sprawled across the world does not help our national defense - in many cases, it hurts it, while bringing bankruptcy to our people. Having a strong military - stationed within our borders and acting only in self-defense - is how we should behave. Your suggestion that our imperialism around the world is what makes us great is actually the very belief that makes us arrogant.
I'd like to close by agreeing with your final statement regarding the views of YAL. YAL's editors have typically radical views, but luckily there is room for debate - such as the debate we are having in this thread. Overall, I would like to argue that posts like this do little to advance the cause of liberty. While I agree with many of the views in the posted article, I have to admit that some of the opinions of Laurence Vance ultimately hurt the credibility of his good arguments - and by extension the cause of our movement.
The headline of the post insinuates that libertarians (or at least the YAL brand of libertarians) do in fact support the military. The article tells a different story. Also, YAL's history of incessant military-bashing and complete lack of anything resembling respect for even the correct, Constitutional purpose of our military leads me to believe that the site is controlled by extremists with a very limited range of beliefs. I think a different view needs to be presented.
@kesteves I don't know if you clicked through to read the whole article, but if you did you'll note that he qualifies that statement a little further down -- I simply didn't copy that part because it wasn't part of the list and I wasn't attempting to repost the whole piece.
@Bryan I concur with your first two paragraphs, and would again note Vance's qualification of the statement in question. Moreover, I've seen Vance speak in person, and when asked which American wars he thought were morally justified, the Revolutionary War was one of two he mentioned -- and I agree with him on that point. Here he is perhaps unclear, but based on reading far more of his work than this one piece, I am fairly positive the wars which do not protect our freedom to which he is referring are conflicts like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq.
To address your second two paragraphs, yes, some YAL bloggers have more "extreme" views that others (though I hesistate to use that word because of its negative connotations, and only do so in reference to Goldwater's "Extremism in the defense of liberty..." quote).
Personally, I don't hate members of the military (neither does Vance, as you'll also see in the click-through). I do think that if they're still enlisted after their first contract is up, they are willfully engaging in an unjust American empire if they cannot guarantee that they will be deployed on absolutely defensive, just, and constitutional missions (the first contract I possibly grant as a mistake for which military members should not be blamed).
Nevertheless, as you said, there is plenty of room for debate. Consider, for instance Jihan Huq's recent post on the rise of homelessness among female veterans, or Matt Cockerill's post on high unemployment among veterans, or even my posting of a letter to the editor we recieved with which I -- and probably most YAL members -- disagree.
While I cannot speak for every YAL blogger, some of whom may be slightly more "extreme" than I, to characterize this blog in general as possessing a history of "incessant military-bashing and complete lack of anything resembling respect for even the correct, Constitutional purpose of our military" is I think unfair -- it's simply that we haven't seen much in the way of current, newsworthy examples of this behavior by the military to praise.
Bonnie,
I will take your word on Mr. Vance and give him the benefit of the doubt, although I still can't help but to simply disagree with some of the things he wrote.
I would also like to explain my use of the word 'extreme', because I think it is important. I perceive this site as being generally anti-military. I know that some people on this site have gone so far as to advocate that we should not have a standing army at all. I will argue against this idea in a moment. As for Mr. Goldwater's quote, I could not agree more that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. It was Goldwater who later disavowed the Republican Party because they had become, in his words, "extremists". The distinction is that those Republicans had fallen in with the religious right - a movement within the Republican party that certainly does not advocate liberty. In the same way, I think a number of folks harboring anti-war sentiment, on this site in particular, have become so 'extreme' in their anti-military beliefs that they are working against the liberty they are so passionate about preserving. Let me explain.
Even from our first days as colonies, we used standing armies to ward off French imperialists, and later to break free from the rule of Britain. Without a strong military, we might have been enslaved again in the War of 1812. In the Quasi-War with France, our warships successfully thwarted attempts by French warships to seize our civilian merchant ships. Need a more recent example? I, much like Barry Goldwater, believe that peace is achieved through strength. The Cold War saw the rise of a very real military threat in the Soviet Union.
When the Soviets called for nuclear nonproliferation, many Americans called for appeasement and some went so far as to say “I would rather crawl on my knees to Moscow than die under an Atom bomb”. War is terrible for a thousand reasons, but there is no point in having a strong military if we rule out its use on principle, especially when it is needed to protect our people. Even our 1983 intervention in Grenada was a legitimate national security mission. Ron Paul even cast his vote for military action on the island, which is literally right on our borders. The nation had grown politically volatile after a Communist coup, and a number of American citizens on the island were essentially caught up in the conflict.
My last point of contention is your suggestion that the two articles regarding homelessness and unemployment among veterans constitute a pro-military position. Coming from this site, those two articles remind me of a 'strange bedfellows' deal, where it looks like you support the military, but only for the sake of criticizing the government.
So I look the liberty of finding you some recent, newsworthy articles regarding our military, and the good that can come from it:
A WW2 Vet gets a proper burial, thanks to the actions of a concerned 19 year old:
http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/world-war-ii-vets-remains...
40 Marine Corps Volunteers work to gather toys for poor children. If that isn't a sign of private charity (the very thing all liberty-lovers should stand for), I'm not sure what is:
http://www.startribune.com/local/79465342.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP...
In the first article, the Coast Guard seizes a vessel containing 21 illegal immigrants, who are then returned to their country of origin. In the second article, they have a list of accomplishments from the year, including the top ten rescuse missions from this year.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/us-agents-seize-boat-with-...
http://www.kfvs12.com/Global/story.asp?S=11687760
" I know that some people on this site have gone so far as to advocate that we should not have a standing army at all."
I would presume, but cannot say in complete confidence, that these people may be anarcho-capitalists who believe that defense is best provided by the private sector. Generally considered a very controversial position, it does have plenty of valid points. In addition, as an anarchist system, it can be considered the ultimate conclusion of liberty. Certainly, this is not antithetical to liberty.
The Marine Corps example that you provided is great and they are worthy of praise. I really don't think anyone sees anything wrong with this. The Coast Guard seizing the vessel of illegal immigrants is a perfect example of keeping our borders safe, and consequentially, a completely justified use of a branch of the military.
"The article tells a different story. Also, YAL's history of incessant military-bashing and complete lack of anything resembling respect for even the correct, Constitutional purpose of our military leads me to believe that the site is controlled by extremists with a very limited range of beliefs."
I would hardly call it incessant military bashing. Suggestions for a peaceful future, that's what I would call it. Many of YAL's members are for coming out of entangling treaties, withdrawing from overseas, and a strong defense of our borders. All of those are Constitutional. Some members do have, what someone unacquainted with them would call, "radical" views. However, they have a lot of substance and are much more preferable to our current system.
Good explanation.
Very well put. I agree with this totally.
I have yet to experience a military not in need of bashing.
@brian & @bonnie,
Not to be-labor the point, but America was infact invaded during WWII, It was the Aleutian Islands off of the Coast of Alaska.
We need the bases that we have in order to defend the alliances that we have within Europe and other parts of the country. And those bases give us a presence within those countrys as a reminder that there is a fight for freedom, example: base in West Germany with East Germany looking on... and i believe that those bases should remain there, because obviously Putin can do whatever he wants to Georgia and someone has to be able to keep him in check...
I would rather fight to the end then live under Communist rule, so the poster that put they would rather crawl to Moskow than die in an Atom bomb... I just have to say that I fundamentally disagree.
OH yeah, I remember goes something like this "I m against the war, but for the troops" Effen please!!!!!! Thats as old as the slime in your underwear.
Not guts at all. OUR military is all volunteer. THEY WANT TO DO WHAT THEY DO
Just admit you hate our power and give it up. Libertarians got most of it right. But this hangup with the military is your big downfall. You all want to live in peace without some asshole taking from you and messing with you............well, there is only one way to do that. By letting them know under no uncertain terms that there first intefering breath will be their last. Just because a few hundred thousand americans feel the libertarian way, it DOES NOT resonate with most others.
LIBERTARIAN IS AN AMERICAN FEELING......AND ONLY AMERICAN.
We can feel this way because we are the only country where people EXPECT to be free and happy.....
I liked the theme of this blog and the fact that the content provided is pretty nice. Will come back to read more. LED Lights for Home
Post new comment