Let me explain how I think that preemption is a moral use of force (therefore defensive force). For the purposes of argument, let’s say you had a neighbor who hates you. And let’s say that this neighbor starts to construct a giant cannon and he states all the while construction is being done, that he intends to destroy your house and family with the gun when it is complete. Are you not justified to destroy the cannon or your neighbor in self defense? I argue that you are. Do you disagree? That, boiled down, is my argument for preemption. The gray area is – at what point does my perceived threat justify me to go ahead and defend myself. That is certainly an area for debate. I will never cede my right to defend myself. Waiting until my neighbor completes his weapon and fires on my house just isn’t going to happen. When that basic idea is then taken to the level of the leviathan U.S. Government trying to make that fine distinction and attack a country preemptively, there is much much room for error, I agree.

I also agree with Walrus that our Government tossed the Constitution out the window a long time ago. In its intent and early in our history, I think that it is still the closest that man has ever gotten to getting government (a necessary evil) right. Therefore, I naturally will fight and strive to head back in that direction.

Not to be inflammatory but wouldn’t you be able to argue that Pearl Harbor is an example of preemption or Hitler’s attack on Poland? Loaning legitimacy to attacking another country is a slippery slope. Just a point to ponder.

As to your point about the Constitution, yes you would be hard pressed to find a provision explicitly stating narrow purposes like coastal clean up. Unfortunately we have strayed far from that great document! Even our current war, like all of the others since WW2 is undeclared, as is specified in the constitution- Congress must declare War.

Thanks Harry for your service to our country and also many thanks to you and the Walrus for the great discussion.

I think you make some good points. I have a friend in the Navy, in intelligence. She made the prescient decision to learn Arabic in college. She is intelligent, loyal, and courageous. We need to have thousands more people like that, with the ability to analyze all the information coming in.

That leads me to my question for you. You mention that we are at war, and that we must face our enemy. I agree, but I wonder how we identify and combat this enemy. This war is different from wars as traditionally conceived, because it is not the people of Iran, or the people of North Korea, or any other unified nation that threaten us. Rather it is a nihilistic ideology of hatred that is carried by a tiny fraction of the population of the world.

Of all the wars we have fought, this one is most like the Cold War, in that the main challenge is not military but ideological. Given that, I wonder how we 1) find the enemy and 2) fight the enemy. I think your comments about improving our intelligence capacity is an excellent way to do that.

I also have to throw in my liberal idea that supporting health, education, and opportunity abroad with foreign aid will benefit the recipients and ourselves.

I am, of course, a liberal in the sense that I think our country should use our power and wealth to promote democracy and human rights everywhere, This does not mean invasions of countries, but rather the things we did to fight the Soviets during the cold war: promoting free exchange of ideas, things like that.

Finally, you hit the nail on the head with your last observation. The current conservatives did not rein in spending even a little bit. They just shifted the tax burden down the income scale. If no one is going to provide a small government, then big government Democrats beat big government Republicans anytime.

You hear politicians like George Bush and columnists like Tom Friedman defend global meddling. Do you ever hear them explain it?

Despite my paleo-conservative rhetoric …I will continue to mostly vote Democratic. If both parties are big government, why not go for the ones who seem to actually have the middle and lower class more in mind.

http://theaginghipster.blogspot.com/2006/05/he-is-walrus.html

I think your analysis of our foreign aid successes is spot on, and highlights the way to use it more productively. After all, our wealth is a powerful tool in our arsenal. Of course, we have to pay attention to what our money is doing. I think you are correct that a simplistic “more aid” approach is wrongheaded. Rather, aid should be looked at as a tactic to accomplish certain ends, for example, more people liking the U.S. and not wanting to kill us. We could then evaluate our programs based on their accomplishment of that goal.

I am intrigued, though, by your final paragraph. Given that, no matter what diplomatic/aid efforts we undertake, some individuals will remain committed to carrying out acts of terror against us, what are we to do? I believe that all Americans, liberals, conservatives, anyone, would defend our country with our lives if necessary–but how? It is less a question of “having the will” than it is of figuring out how.

We can’t invade any country we might suspect of harboring some terrorists, because we don’t have the military resources to invade half the planet. I don’t think imprisoning anyone we think might have terrorist leanings indefinitely will work either, because the cost in terms of international anger (=more terrorists) outweighs any possible benefit. We can’t torture because confessions under torture are notoriously unreliable, not to mention it is unethical and antithetical to our respect for individual rights.

That’s why I mentioned intelligence. We have to figure out ways to identify jihadist terrorists that are accurate and that work consistently. To do this we should at least be offering a lot of money to Universities that will teach Arabic and other middle eastern languages and cultural history. Probably a bunch of other stuff.

I take it as a given that everyone “has the will” to defend our country. It is just a question of how to do it best. It would be much easier if all the jihadists would try to invade New York City by ship or something, because then I could get my bat and defend my home. But they aren’t doing that, so more subtle methods are required.

Congratulations on stimulating an interesting discussion on foreign aid. You managed to provoke agreement across the political spectrum in opposition to your call for more aid. Your recent clarification in response to Harry’s post is, I believe, closer to where we ought to be. Let me offer some points for your consideration.

First we should play to our strength with respect to foreign aid. The US response to the tsunami and the earthquake in Pakistan showed us at our best. Using our military assets we were able to deliver aid to remote areas that could not otherwise be reached. It also gave countless Muslims a first hand experience with the US military that showed both our power and our compassion.

Second, we need to recognize the limits of foreign aid. As you suggest in your last post, our present government-to-government aid expenditures might, with good reason, be seen as propping up a corrupt regime. Although there may be policy rationale for such aid, we should recognize it for the expediency that it is, and plan to move to a different plan.

Unfortunately, neither aid nor diplomacy will be sufficient in defeating our “decentralized enemy”. The Jihadists hate us and will interpret our attempts at understanding their hatred with contempt. They are willing to die for lies. Are we willing to fight, and die if necessary, for freedom and the truth? Does the “Large Liberal Community” have the will to defend this country?