Letters: On Weighing War (July/August 2003)

To the Editor:

Regarding William Thomas's "Weighing War" [Navigator, April 2003]: I don't know why you would publish such a thing. Standard Fox News: same facts, same reasoning, and same conclusions, but a lot longer to assimilate. Nothing original, no special insight the author thinks we should get. Nothing to repay the reader's effort.

S. T. Bond

Given that so much "Objectivist" commentary has been prone to "nuke 'em all" sloganeering, it was refreshing to read William Thomas's "philosophic examination" of international politics. I applaud Thomas's attempt to weigh carefully real-world circumstances en route to a reasonable conclusion. This does not mean, however, that there is no room for reasonable disagreement.

First, let me mention the things I think Thomas got right: his elucidation of the basic tenets of a principled Objectivist approach to foreign policy; his warnings that a U.S. occupation of Iraq might "fuel anti-Americanism throughout the region"; and his emphasis "that political policy is a symptom, but culture is the root cause"—something we ignore at our peril, given the enormous cultural obstacles to freedom in the Middle East.

What concerns me about Thomas's position is not merely his support for "billions upon billions of dollars" for the folly of democratic nation-building—for which I am tempted to ask the perennial Randian question: At whose expense? It's not merely his endorsement of certain foreign policy goals, which require us "to hold our noses" when entering into "alliance[s] of convenience" with less-free countries—a pragmatic policy that is partially responsible for the current state of U.S. foreign policy. It is that there seems to be no appreciation for Ayn Rand's crucial insight: "Foreign policy is merely a consequence of domestic policy" ("The Shanghai Gesture, The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. 1, Nos. 13-15). Rand's radical critique of U.S. domestic policy, the "economic essence" of which is a new kind of "fascism," led her to an equally radical assessment of the "pull-peddling" that has exported "the bloody chaos of tribal warfare" to the rest of the globe ("The Pull Peddlers," The Objectivist Newsletter, September, 1962). My own essay, "Understanding the Global Crisis" (The Free Radical, May/June 2003; ), is just a first step toward reclaiming Rand's radical legacy. Much work still needs to be done if we are to avoid making Objectivism into an apologia for the neoconservative status quo.

Chris Matthew Sciabarra

I thoroughly appreciated William Thomas's article on the war with Iraq. The only part of his argument that did not sit well with me was that which concerned the defense of the oil trade. It is certainly in our interests to encourage free trade, but sending troops off to war asks them potentially to give up their lives. As Objectivists, we hold that the only things worth dying for are those without which life would not be possible. I submit that defending our country and our allies qualifies, but I think that "life" is quite possible with less oil and a less-vibrant world economy. As a soldier, I would choose that sort of life over the possibility of death—and I don't think you would ask me to give up my life for the economic prosperity of others!

Thanks for the food for thought.

Alexander Boxerbaum

Regarding William Thomas's "Weighing War": a very insightful article! It is quite interesting to note the differences between The Objectivist Center and the Cato Institute on foreign policy. Cato's Doug Bandow recently wrote a piece on North Korea, in which he argued for a pullout of all U.S. troops from South Korea and suggested that the U.S. not even consider a military option. Charles Peña's offerings on Iraq are also dovish.

I sent a letter to Doug Bandow at Cato arguing against many of his points and received a response the next day. I had mentioned that I am a libertarian with an Objectivist philosophy who has lived and worked in South Korea off and on since 1975, and he wrote that he was surprised a "self-styled" Objectivist like me could believe in welfare for South Korea. He went on to mention a few other things—mostly missing the points of my reasoning.

I truly value much of what the Cato Institute has to offer, but after some time, I have come to realize that they are advocates of isolationism in the world today. I am very glad to see that William Thomas and TOC have a more thoughtful take on the Korean situation.

John Sharp

William Thomas responds:

My thanks to John Sharp.

S.T. Bond is right that my article contained no facts that were not fairly widely available by the third week of the war. But I hope that I offered a more balanced assessment than the Fox News commentators. My aim was not to argue for or against war, but to help my readers better frame their views.

Chris Sciabarra asks: "At whose expense?" Taxpayers' expense, of course. National defense is a fundamental function of government, and, however much our current tax system is flawed, it was implicit in my arguments that ultimately the interests of each individual citizen must underwrite government action. That must be a strong constraint, but individuals do have some interests in common. Also, I would like to clarify that while I think diplomacy requires "holding one's nose" at times to deal with dubious regimes, I think U.S. governments have generally been far too eager to do so and not sufficiently attentive to principle, since World War II at least. I am with Rand on that one.

Alexander Boxerbaum demurs from risking soldiers' lives (including his own) to fight for oil. But economic liberty, both here and abroad, is a universal value. To defend it is to uphold the right to property and free trade, including trade in oil. Conquest is not in the interests of our country, but liberation is.