Posts in "military"

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 11:18PM

Should Christians volunteer for military service?

Q. Should Christians volunteer for military service? — CJ Scrofani, from Warrenton, VA.

A. That depends.  Right now?  No.  Other times?  Maybe.

The American military in its present capacity simply is not being used in just or moral manner — not to mention how far it has strayed from its constitutional purpose.  Because of this, I’d argue that a Christian cannot in good conscience join the military at this time.  I would also go so far as to argue that if a draft were to be reinstated now, conscientious objector status would be the minimum a Christian should do to avoid combat, and complete resistance a far better option.

On the other hand, if our military completely changed to a moral, constitutional, and strictly defensive force…well, at that point a Christian might join.  Whether the individual Christian should do so would be between him and his Lord, but — assuming those conditions were truly met — joining would not be out of the question.  I don’t think Christianity necessarily calls us to pacifism (though perhaps it may require that of some), and it is surely right to defend the innocent when actually attacked.

For further reading on this subject, I’d recommend you to Laurence Vance’s “Letter to a Christian Young Man Regarding Joining the Military,” a short article with which you may already be familiar.  I’m not always in 100% agreement with Vance, but in this case I am, and he makes my complete argument much better than I could.

Originally posted on my own blog here.

Roy Antoun's picture
By Roy Antoun at 4:25PM

Iran a "Military Dictatorship"?

Hillary Clinton and IranAccording to a recent New York Times article, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared the Islamic Republic of Iran to be a “military dictatorship.” She said that “we will always defend ourselves, and we will always defend our friends and allies, and we will certainly defend countries who are in the Gulf who face the greatest immediate nearby threat from Iran.”  But one must question why the United States has “allies” in a war that is being fought against a non-conventional army, or why the US feels the need to intervene in the Middle East at all (if oil is the issue, all government needs to do is lower taxes and allow the private sector to compete on creating a new, renewable energy source).

Furthermore, the United States is now proposing a new United Nations Security Council Resolution “that names specific companies and the wide web of assets…to increase the cost for those who do business with Iran so much that they would cut off ties.” Not only is the United States interfering in global free markets, but it is only giving Iran another reason to hate the West. Rather than compromising with Iran, the policies our government is pursuing will strengthen hatreds which already exists and even create enemies where we had none before. 

Preston Mui's picture
By Preston Mui at 8:49AM

Avatar: A Pro-Freedom Movie

It's been out for a while, but I only just got around to seeing Avatar. Luckily for me, the local cinema is open even with the snowstorm here in D.C. (yes, the movie theater is open, but the Federal Government is closed).

I wasn't sure what to expect from it before going in. The day before, one of my Republican friends at school expressed disapproval of the movie. He didn't say it in so many words, but he implied that the movie was anti-military and overly environmentalist. But I felt it was a movie I should see anyways -- and I was right. Not only was it a decent movie, but I found its themes to be extremely pro-liberty.

[Read on only if you want spoilers!]


Read more here
Roy Antoun's picture
By Roy Antoun at 4:56PM

Deficit & Debt: Goodbye American Power

The United States has an interesting role in global markets. Since World War II, the US has entangled itself in superfluous alliances and Keynesian markets, engaging in the same illusory markets as its European counterparts. As Jihan discussed, we have recently learned that President Barack Obama’s proposed federal budget may put the United States' economic legitimacy in even greater risk than it has been before for several reasons. Primary, our deficit is running off “nearly 11 percent of the country’s entire economic output.” But as the NY Times has stated, most deficits are usually brought down during peacetime. However, with the way the United States has been handling foreign policy as of recent, any form of “peacetime” seems like an ocean away from any “hope.”

From NYT - Carrying the Budget


Read more here
Roy Antoun's picture
By Roy Antoun at 12:54PM

Haiti: An American Crutch

It’s naïve to think that the United States government is a generous institution that genuinely looks after the general welfare of its republic and others in need. After a long history of mismanaged occupation and indebtedness, the US feels the obligation to aid Haiti victims in the wake of the earthquake disaster. For those who believe the United States is operating benevolently and unselfishly, they should think again.

Given the mismanaged history of US-Haiti relations, it is safe to say that if the United States had no stake in Western hemisphere politics it wouldn’t be contributing so much to the relief effort. But it does. In the government's conception of the US’s best interest, glorifying American wealth and manpower is nothing short of how a state operates when its global hegemony feels threatened. The constant reminder of the 82nd Airborne’s presence in Haiti is all too similar to Russia’s May Day parades during the Cold War, US troops parading through Paris in 1944, and Caesar’s military showcase after his conquest of Gaul. And after American conquest in the Middle East, what better way to boast military power in the Western hemisphere than to remind a poor country how powerful and wealthy America can be when it taxes its citizens promptly and without adherence to law?

American Imperialism


Read more here
Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 1:45PM

The humanitarian with a guillotine? Hopefully not.

The UK's Telegraph reports on accusations coming from both the French government and internationally-renowned Swiss emergency relief charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders):

"This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti," [a French official]said.

Geneva-based charity Medecins Sans Frontieres backed his calls saying hundreds of lives were being put at risk as planes carrying vital medical supplies were being turned away by American air traffic controllers.

But US commanders insisted their forces' focus was on humanitarian work and last night agreed to prioritise aid arrivals to the airport over military flights, after the intervention of the UN....

Haiti was occupied by the US between 1915 and 1935, and historical sensitivities together with friction with other countries over the relief effort has made the Americans cautious about their role in the operation.

Here in America, some libertarians like Lew Rockwell share these suspicions of the US military's long-term motives for involvement.  Rockwell commented:  "Murray Rothbard didn’t call it the welfare-warfare state for nothing. It’s the social worker with a machine gun, or as Isabel Patterson put it so long ago, the humanitarian with a guillotine."

Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 2:54PM

Should the US Military Go into Haiti?

Laurence Vance says no, and I agree.  Why not?  Well, as has been discussed here at the YAL blog already, it's wrong for the US government to respond to this horrible situation with forced charity.  Where the military specifically is concerned, it's also a complete violation of military purpose:

The main reason the U.S. military has no business going to Haiti is simply that the purpose of the military should be to defend the United States against attack or invasion. Nothing more (like invading other countries), and nothing less (like failing to defend its own headquarters on 9/11). Using the military to establish democracy, spread goodwill, change regimes, train foreign armies, open foreign markets, enforce no-fly zones, protect U.S. commercial interests, serve as peacekeepers, furnish security in other countries, contain communism, and provide disaster relief and humanitarian aid perverts the purpose of the military.

Moreover, there are other good reasons no to take the secretary of defense up on his offer to send in the troops.  Vance particularly mentions three:  First, this is what private charity is for -- and private organizations, I'd add, are much better at actually aiding those in need:

Private charities have an incentive toward greater efficiency and effectiveness since they are competing with other charities for money and volunteers. If they fail in their mission, they may experience declining contributions, possibly to the point where operations will cease. In simple economic terms, the amount of assistance that reaches the recipients of government welfare benefits are only a fraction of the resources consumed by the supporting bureaucracy.

I did extensive original research resulting in a 70-page paper on exactly this subject and I can tell you, he's right.


Read more here
Matt Cockerill's picture
By Matt Cockerill at 12:14PM

Anti-State and Anti-War

It's obvious that there are some folks who think the anti-war stuff is just "for kicks," or that anti-war bloggers are just being "contrarian for the sake of it."

But for me, it just comes down to a consistent interpretation of classical liberalism, individualism, and natural rights. Individuals are infinitely valuable; our lives mean something and nobody can tell us we don't have a right to them. But the other side of the token is that individuals are responsible for what they do; we don't excuse private crime because of bad circumstances like poor families-- so just because the troops were deceived doesn't excuse them unjustifiably killing people.

Either it's OK to maim Afghani toddlers to pursue the state's interests or it isn't. Feel free to take your stand, but don't sidetrack with the patriotism/nationalism stuff. The state loves to see its subjects "unite" on war and resort to those silly platitudes, but  deep down, we all know well how irrational they are.

As for hating the troops? Puhlease. That would imply a hatred of the guy who got most of us into this movement.


Read more here
Bonnie Kristian's picture
By Bonnie Kristian at 9:09PM

Do Antiwar Libertarians Hate the Military?

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.

Read more here
Shaun Bowen's picture
By Shaun Bowen at 8:14AM

Earth First! Gets Some New Buddies

EVTank

Many have called environmentalism a "new religion" for activists. It seems that everywhere you go today you are bombarded by slogans about "going green." Even major corporations have jumped on the bandwagon of environmental friendliness. So when I came across this gem I couldn't help but chuckle.

It seems that now even military contractors are trying to become more eco-friendly. According to the article defense establishment companies such as MBDA Missile Systems and BAE Systems have now made it part of their corporate plan to try to produce more "green" munitions. MBDA has joined the "10:10" Campaign, a group based in the UK whose goal is to reduce carbon emissions by 10% by 2010. When asked about why they allowed a company who creates weapons of mass destruction to be added to the roster of 10:10 campaigns they stated that it was important for MBDA to "reduce their emissions by 10 per cent... What they do with the rest of their time is a different matter, on which we couldn't possibly comment."


Read more here